"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...


If you are truely interested in you child's welfare and don't want a $500
fine you will find a way to get there. Plain and simple.

How.

Think!



Come on THINK, the first thin that comes to mind is to ask for a freind
or
neighbor for a ride.

And why would any of them have cars?

You are not thinking are you?


Were you one of those people that always needed some one else to solve
your
problems.

If nobody needs anybody to solve their problems then why does the
teacher need the parent to solve her problems?

You apparently don't get it. It's not the teachers problem, is the parents
and child's problem.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

More importantly a one on one with teacher and or principal. I am not a
teacher and believe that too many teachers are ineffective. If you fail
to
see the revelance you are probably one of those people that always points
the finger.

I see, you've made two attempt now to make this about me.

HUH?


Personally I think that any teacher that can't handle the kids without
parental meetings should be fir^Hned.

Where do you live, Dream land? What public school will let a teacher
actually discipline a child without fear of a law suite?

If that is what you see as the problem then you simply need to make it
lawful for teachers to discipline children without fear of a lawsuit
rather than fining parents for not kowtowing to teachers' demands that
they appear in a certain place at a certain time.

Now you are making sense. The teacher should be able to dicepline the kids
with out fear of a law suite just like a parent should be. If it goes too
far then they can be punished just like any one else.
Further, where did you get the notion that a teacher can demand that you
show up in a certain place at a certain time? Appointments are made to
suite both parties. If you make a commitment and do not show up then that
again is a personal problem and deserves the fine.


But you are actually introducing Constitutional issues here. By what
authority does a teacher have the power to order a parent to be in a
certain place at a certain time? Teachers are not police or judges,
they have no power to issue warrants. I suspect that the courts would
toss any such law in short order.

There you go assuming that the teacher can call all the shots again.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Parenting is more than multiplying. If you cannot afford or take care of
kids don't have them.


While I agree with this in principle, it is beside the point.

Precicely ON POINT. The law to punish for making an appoint for your childs
benefit and not showing up will like all other laws impress future parents
that they have a responsibility to their future children.

Don't be so short sighted.




Where there is
a will, there is a way. If the parent gets fined because he cannot
attend
to his child's needs he needs to do better parenting at home so that the
child does not require a parent teacher meeting.

If fining the parent means that he and the kid end up living in that
box then how have you helped the kid?

How many people do you personally know that live in a box because of a
$500
fine?

I've never known anybody who had to pay a $500 fine for refusing to
kiss a teacher's butt.

There you go adding BS to the proposed law.


The parents are responsible for their children and the schools are not
baby
sitters.

No, the schools are not baby sitters, they are surrogate parents--that
is what the doctrine of "in loco parentis" means.

That is what liberals believe.

No, that is what the _law_ believes.


Give me a break. Do you often post under the name of Doug?

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:22:04 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .


If you are truely interested in you child's welfare and don't want a $500
fine you will find a way to get there. Plain and simple.

How.

Think!



Come on THINK, the first thin that comes to mind is to ask for a freind
or
neighbor for a ride.

And why would any of them have cars?

You are not thinking are you?

Not an answer. Why would any poor person living in the inner city
have a car? And what makes you think that poor people living in the
inner city have neighbors or friends who are any better off than they
are?

Were you one of those people that always needed some one else to solve
your
problems.

If nobody needs anybody to solve their problems then why does the
teacher need the parent to solve her problems?

You apparently don't get it. It's not the teachers problem, is the parents
and child's problem.

Then why is the teacher harassing them?

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:29:42 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .

More importantly a one on one with teacher and or principal. I am not a
teacher and believe that too many teachers are ineffective. If you fail
to
see the revelance you are probably one of those people that always points
the finger.

I see, you've made two attempt now to make this about me.

HUH?


Personally I think that any teacher that can't handle the kids without
parental meetings should be fir^Hned.

Where do you live, Dream land? What public school will let a teacher
actually discipline a child without fear of a law suite?

If that is what you see as the problem then you simply need to make it
lawful for teachers to discipline children without fear of a lawsuit
rather than fining parents for not kowtowing to teachers' demands that
they appear in a certain place at a certain time.

Now you are making sense. The teacher should be able to dicepline the kids
with out fear of a law suite just like a parent should be. If it goes too
far then they can be punished just like any one else.
Further, where did you get the notion that a teacher can demand that you
show up in a certain place at a certain time? Appointments are made to
suite both parties. If you make a commitment and do not show up then that
again is a personal problem and deserves the fine.

So why would a parent make the commitment to begin with and risk the
fine?

But you are actually introducing Constitutional issues here. By what
authority does a teacher have the power to order a parent to be in a
certain place at a certain time? Teachers are not police or judges,
they have no power to issue warrants. I suspect that the courts would
toss any such law in short order.

There you go assuming that the teacher can call all the shots again.

Someone is calling the shots. If the parent has the right to refuse
to make the appointment then what purpose is served by fining the
parent who for whatever reason manages to miss one? All you're
accomplishing is to guarantee that nobody in their right mind will
ever make such an appointment.

You keep saying "liberals this" and "liberals that". The hallmark of
liberalism is more and more laws that intrude more and more into our
day to day lives. If you want to espouse a _conservative_ solution
then ditch the forced bussing and the parent will be able to walk to
the school. But you're too busy trying to find new ways to harass
people who already have too much on their plate to be bothered with
doing anything like _that_.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message

Sounds as if the Texan educators are sufficiently technophobic that
they daren't punch up a phone number when they have something to say
to a parent. I'm glad that isn't so daunting to teachers everywhere.

Hey, Bubba ... watch it! It's a statistical fact that most of the folks now
residing here in Texas are not "Texans".

Besides, I won't defend the "educators" because they themselves are often
the product of a successive generational increase in parental
irresponsibilty which currently, and clearly, manifests itself in public
schools in this country, and not just in Texas.

The proposal is unquestionably distasteful, but it is an attempt to address
a problem that is growing here to the point it that it will take distasteful
action to solve.

Got any alternative suggestions/solutions?

Also sounds as if Rep. Smith hankers to appear important/powerful by
criminalizing and (perhaps further) economically handicapping those
who don't do what he thinks they should.

Since justice has to do with equity (hence the scales in Justice's
hand - along with the sword), it would be interesting to hear Rep.
Smith expound on the justice of his bill - and to establish that $500
is, in fact, a fair and reasonable valuation of the stood-up teacher's
time. Perhaps that valuation could be used, in turn, to arrive at a
new salary schedule for Texas teachers. \
I'm not sure that I think much of that criminalization stuff, tho. But
then, perhaps the Texans - or the Texas Legislature - feels that they
really do need more citizens with criminal records. Presumably, a
person with a criminal record is easier to intimidate and control...

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping government out of daily life, but
let's look at it at another angle:

I just paid $6.3K and some change in 2006 HISD school taxes two days ago ...
believe me, with a kid in college, it hurt financially to do that public
duty, which I have no philosophical problem with doing.

Now, you tell me why irresponsible parents, whose kids disrupt the classroom
so no others can learn and thereby rob me/my kids of the value of my hard
earned tax dollar spent on education, should NOT have to pay in some manner
for their irresponsible parenting?

.... and _particularly_ when they REFUSE to show up to discuss the problem!

Hell, you fine someone for not showing up at traffic court, why not a
parent/teacher conference?

Which is more important?

That something has to be done is unquestionable ... got any alternative
suggestions?

BTW, this is NOT personal, Morris ... the fact that you're a good guy shines
through all the BS on both sides.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/27/07

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...


Leon, you simply are not in touch with reality. I'll wager that you
have a high income and/or no kids.

I am comfortable, retired at 40, 12 years ago, but certainly have not got a
high income. I quit my job to be at home for my son when he started
attending public schools. During the first 3 years of my retirement my
family had a negative cash flow every month. Needless to say, making ends
meet was difficult those 3 years.

My son, now 19, is an Honors student and has a 4 year academic excellence
scholarship that he earned that pays for 85% of his tuition at the
University of Houston. Additionally, he works part time and has had the
same job for most of the last 3 years.

The HS that he went to in SW Houston put up with no crap from the students.
Poor conduct resulted in the student being immediately transferred to one of
the other schools. Parent involvement at the school in this middle to lower
income community was high.

I am totally in touch with reality. I am just not one to sit around making
excuses for why I can't do this or can't do that. No one handed me
anything.

People that sit around blaming others, get no where. Lead, help, or get
out of the way.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Not an answer. Why would any poor person living in the inner city
have a car? And what makes you think that poor people living in the
inner city have neighbors or friends who are any better off than they
are?

In Houston, poor people that barely have a roof over their heads drive
better cars than I do.


Were you one of those people that always needed some one else to solve
your
problems.

If nobody needs anybody to solve their problems then why does the
teacher need the parent to solve her problems?

You apparently don't get it. It's not the teachers problem, is the
parents
and child's problem.

Then why is the teacher harassing them?

HUH?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

So why would a parent make the commitment to begin with and risk the
fine?

The appointmant will not be optional but will be fair to both parites.


But you are actually introducing Constitutional issues here. By what
authority does a teacher have the power to order a parent to be in a
certain place at a certain time? Teachers are not police or judges,
they have no power to issue warrants. I suspect that the courts would
toss any such law in short order.

There you go assuming that the teacher can call all the shots again.


Someone is calling the shots. If the parent has the right to refuse
to make the appointment then what purpose is served by fining the
parent who for whatever reason manages to miss one? All you're
accomplishing is to guarantee that nobody in their right mind will
ever make such an appointment.

You assume that the parent will have the right to refuse that meeting. I
seriousely doubt that will be true. He will most likely be given the
benefit of attending that meeting when he can do so. The parent has to play
the gown up here and take responsibility for being a parent. What a
concept.


You keep saying "liberals this" and "liberals that". The hallmark of
liberalism is more and more laws that intrude more and more into our
day to day lives. If you want to espouse a _conservative_ solution
then ditch the forced bussing and the parent will be able to walk to
the school. But you're too busy trying to find new ways to harass
people who already have too much on their plate to be bothered with
doing anything like _that_.

NO a liberal is one that wants more and more government and laws to cover
his butt, pay his way, and carry him along. A law requiring you to be a
responsible parent is not liberal thinking.
Go ahead and look the other way and throw stones at those trying to make a
change in this broken system.

On Feb 3, 12:28 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

SNIP of reference quote

Progress reports go unanswered; emails ignored; phone calls
are unreturned.

Nailshooter, you put that point a lot more eloquently than I did and with
a lot more good humor.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------*------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------*------+

I have a whole new outlook on teaching, teachers and parents with my
pal going to teaching than I did before. Talk about a look from the
inside. Simply having kids in school and claiming you understand
teaching and the school system is like building a birdhouse and
calling yourself a general contractor.

Until his new school super came on board, the teachers caught all the
flack for poor student performance. We all know there are poor
teachers, but according to him, there are also a lot of good ones.

He hasn't had to face the guy that work 2.5 jobs and lives out of
district because his child was bussed and he is afraid of child
protective services. Paul would probably drive out to meet that guy
personally. No... it is much more mundane. The excuses he hears are
"I forgot", "oh, was today?" and (my favorite) "I didn't do good at
math either, so why should he?".

The best though, is when it is time to pass/fail, and the parents are
sent a notification letter and very few respond. They do respond
though (magically finding the time!) when they find out their kiddo
will be held back a grade. Their response? No one told me. This is
the first I have heard of this...

And since the teachers didn't keep records of when they sent out
notices, emails, made phone calls, etc., they were held at fault by
the parents. How could their little angel be put back a grade? He
only missed 10 unexcused days in the whole semester... and he did turn
in something for an assignment... I don't know what it was or what
class it was, but I do remember that one day he was working on
schoolwork...

Enough teachers received discipline notices that they pushed the
principal and superintendent to come up with a new plan since they
felt like they were getting blamed for problems. Now, since the
school district has been SUED for not passing students, they have a
system that satisfies today's litigious requirements.

They are required to notify the parents (and keep records of same) if
the students start slipping in their grades, have unexcused absences,
or they are tardy too many times. They parents must be notified in a
time frame that allows the student to recover. If there is no
response, they do it again, all documented, this time with the
principal involved. If no response, they notify the parents again
with the assistance of the principal's office so that the school admin
is involved.

In other words, they are building a case against the parents.

And to address another aspect of suspicioned technophobia, here's how
phone notification works (according to my buddy):

"We called you twice to let you know about this"

"No you didn't"

"Yes we did"

"No you didn't"

"Oh yes we did!"

"Prove it!"

Although he likes that one, he really likes the parents that wind up
with the principal telling the admin staff they have never heard of
Paul, much less talked to him.

The parents if these children don't feel the need to keep up with
their kids, and they honestly feel like it is the job of the school to
assist them in raising their kids, not just to educate them.

What is truly sad is the fact that the kids know they face no
consequences from parents or school, and with a 47% dropout rate (2006
statistic as compiled by the school district) before graduation, they
don't care. Paul's students have told him, "yeah dude, I gave the
note to my parents but you know they won't call." He tries to do what
he can, but he is now at the place in his career where he realizes you
simply can't save them all. And without help from the parents -
impossible. According to him, the parents are usually 75% or more of
the problem.

But here is where the district is caught in the crack. If they have
XX % of dropouts or fails, they will lose their State funding first,
then their Federal funding, which means they are gone. Strange, isn't
it? It puts them in a position of trying everything they can to keep
butts in the seats, if for no other reason than to protect the jobs in
the school district.

I don't want this to sound like I am 100% all pro education, though.
Rest assured, I do see both sides of the arguement. If the parents
don't care about education and furthering the interests and well being
of their kids, who are we to say that is wrong?

And when I am trying to screw with Paul (who still has a little of
that "Welcome Back Kotter" them song running through his head) I
always tell him to calm down, and like water, let the situation find
its own level.

We live in South Texas, and in some areas of the state business is
mainly manufacturing and agriculture. So my questions to him a if
all are educated, who will pick our lettuce? Who will pick the
grapefruits and pack them for shipping? Who will clean up my jobsites
and load the dumpsters? Who will prime and paint the bumpers at the
truck bumper plants? Who will clean the live animal pens at the meat
packing plant, and who will clean the guts up from the killing and
first gutting floor at the slaugher house? Who will hold the "SLOW"
sign that you see when going through a small road construction
project?

So if we educate them all, who will do those jobs? Certainly not the
immigrants that are coming over these days. They make work the fields
if they are illegals, but the legal guys that take piece work from me
are educated enough to do complex carpentry work, do some really good
paint/plaster work (including estimating material amounts and costs
for large jobs) and some even run their own small businesses. So
where would that leave us in the long run if we run out of people to
take the worst jobs? In one sense, those with lesser education hold
an important position in our economy. Would any of you want your kids
doing those jobs to support a family - your grandkids?

Thankfully, we won't have to make that decision for a while. His
school district will continue on as it has for many, many years, and
we will have a steady supply of feeble minded imbeciles that simply
cannot do better. Some have the native intelligence to do so, but
simply not having been encouraged or disciplined to do better, they
don't. These smarter guys make great drug dealers and the actual
leaders of some of our local gangs.

For me, the solution is easy. If the parents don't participate and
show an interest, their kids are doomed. If neither side cares, and
ample time, effort, tax payer's money and teacher attention is spent,
they should pull out both parents and kids from the school, and leave
the teachers with the parents that give damn and kids that want to
learn. There are still a few of those families out there, even in his
district.

Robert

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Sorry, but putting a roof over the kid's head is part of taking care
of the kid and failing to do so is neglecting the kid.

Part of parenting is to see that the children are educated so they will not
have to live in a cardboard box.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
If that is what you see as the problem then you simply need to make it
lawful for teachers to discipline children without fear of a lawsuit
rather than fining parents for not kowtowing to teachers' demands that
they appear in a certain place at a certain time.

That is a HUGE part of the problem, not just for teachers, but many parents
are reluctant to punish their kids.

Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.

1956 - Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle, goes
to his car and gets his to show Jack.

2006 - School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to
jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for
traumatized students and teachers.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1956 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end
up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody
expelled.

2006 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark.
Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started
it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.

1956 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by
Principal. Sits still in class.

2006 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School
gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad
gives him a whipping.

1956 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to
college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2006 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to
foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state
psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad
goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to
school.

1956 - Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the
smoking dock.

2006 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations.
Car searched for drugs and weapons.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.

1956 - 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a
special school for expectant mothers.

2006 - Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who
notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets an
abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given
condoms and told to be more careful next time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1956 : Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

2006 : Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party.
Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching
English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class
action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English
teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma
anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak
English.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of
July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant
bed

1956 - Ants die.

2006 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with
domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from
home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch
list and is never allowed to fly again.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his
knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary, hugs him to
comfort him.

1956 - In a short time Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2006 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job.
She faces 3 years in State Prison.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

Is something wrong here????

__________________________________________________ _______________

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:04:30 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .

Not an answer. Why would any poor person living in the inner city
have a car? And what makes you think that poor people living in the
inner city have neighbors or friends who are any better off than they
are?

In Houston, poor people that barely have a roof over their heads drive
better cars than I do.


Were you one of those people that always needed some one else to solve
your
problems.

If nobody needs anybody to solve their problems then why does the
teacher need the parent to solve her problems?

You apparently don't get it. It's not the teachers problem, is the
parents
and child's problem.

Then why is the teacher harassing them?

HUH?

If (a) people don't need someone else to solve their problems, and (b)
it's the parents' and child's problem, not the teacher's problem, then
how is it the teacher's business?

You're the one making up the rules, if you can't live with them you
need to work on your value system.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:13:39 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .

So why would a parent make the commitment to begin with and risk the
fine?

The appointmant will not be optional but will be fair to both parites.


But you are actually introducing Constitutional issues here. By what
authority does a teacher have the power to order a parent to be in a
certain place at a certain time? Teachers are not police or judges,
they have no power to issue warrants. I suspect that the courts would
toss any such law in short order.

There you go assuming that the teacher can call all the shots again.


Someone is calling the shots. If the parent has the right to refuse
to make the appointment then what purpose is served by fining the
parent who for whatever reason manages to miss one? All you're
accomplishing is to guarantee that nobody in their right mind will
ever make such an appointment.

You assume that the parent will have the right to refuse that meeting. I
seriousely doubt that will be true. He will most likely be given the
benefit of attending that meeting when he can do so. The parent has to play
the gown up here and take responsibility for being a parent. What a
concept.

So you're saying that the parent doesn't have the right to refuse to
attend and can be subjected to criminal penalties for failing to do
so.

Make up your mind, can the teacher order the meeting and cause the
parent to be fined for failing to appear or can't she? You can't have
it both ways.

If the teacher can order it then the teacher is in effect issuing a
subpeona or arrest warrant, if the teacher can't order it then the
parent isn't going to risk the fine by agreeing to it.

You keep saying "liberals this" and "liberals that". The hallmark of
liberalism is more and more laws that intrude more and more into our
day to day lives. If you want to espouse a _conservative_ solution
then ditch the forced bussing and the parent will be able to walk to
the school. But you're too busy trying to find new ways to harass
people who already have too much on their plate to be bothered with
doing anything like _that_.

NO a liberal is one that wants more and more government and laws to cover
his butt, pay his way, and carry him along.

So how are such "liberal" programs as Welfare and national health
insurance "covering the butt, paying the way, and carrying along" the
liberal Congresscritters who already _have_ all that?

A law requiring you to be a
responsible parent is not liberal thinking.

Says the liberal trying hard to pretend to be a conservative.

Go ahead and look the other way and throw stones at those trying to make a
change in this broken system.

If you want to fix the system, arresting parents is not the way to do
it.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:34:02 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .

Parenting is more than multiplying. If you cannot afford or take care of
kids don't have them.


While I agree with this in principle, it is beside the point.

Precicely ON POINT. The law to punish for making an appoint for your childs
benefit and not showing up will like all other laws impress future parents
that they have a responsibility to their future children.

Don't be so short sighted.

Why don't you just arrest everybody who has a kid without having a
certain income then instead of coming up with yet another petty
annoyance.

Where there is
a will, there is a way. If the parent gets fined because he cannot
attend
to his child's needs he needs to do better parenting at home so that the
child does not require a parent teacher meeting.

If fining the parent means that he and the kid end up living in that
box then how have you helped the kid?

How many people do you personally know that live in a box because of a
$500
fine?

I've never known anybody who had to pay a $500 fine for refusing to
kiss a teacher's butt.

There you go adding BS to the proposed law.

Hey, you're the one who proposed it.

The parents are responsible for their children and the schools are not
baby
sitters.

No, the schools are not baby sitters, they are surrogate parents--that
is what the doctrine of "in loco parentis" means.

That is what liberals believe.

No, that is what the _law_ believes.


Give me a break. Do you often post under the name of Doug?

Hey, if you don't like the doctrine that has been well established by
the courts that the schools stand in loco parentis to the students,
then you should be worrying about getting legislation enacted to
change that, not finding new ways to harass parents. Sticking your
little ostrich head in the sand and denying that that is the law isn't
going to help anybody.

And I have no idea who this "doug" might be. Probably someone in my
killfile, who you have just joined.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:51:33 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .


Leon, you simply are not in touch with reality. I'll wager that you
have a high income and/or no kids.

I am comfortable, retired at 40, 12 years ago, but certainly have not got a
high income.

If you are retired at 40 then you have by the standards of someone on
Welfare or holding down a minimum-wage job, a high income.

I quit my job to be at home for my son when he started
attending public schools. During the first 3 years of my retirement my
family had a negative cash flow every month. Needless to say, making ends
meet was difficult those 3 years.

A poor person doesn't have the luxury of three years of negative cash
flow. Three weeks would be pushing it. If you think you know poor
you've got another think coming.

My son, now 19, is an Honors student and has a 4 year academic excellence
scholarship that he earned that pays for 85% of his tuition at the
University of Houston. Additionally, he works part time and has had the
same job for most of the last 3 years.

The HS that he went to in SW Houston put up with no crap from the students.
Poor conduct resulted in the student being immediately transferred to one of
the other schools.

In other words they had no clue how to discipline the kids so they
cherry-picked and gave the problems to someone else.

Parent involvement at the school in this middle to lower
income community was high.

"Middle to lower". In other words middle class.

I am totally in touch with reality.

If you think that being able to afford a "negative cash flow" for
three years is poverty then you are _not_ in touch.

I am just not one to sit around making
excuses for why I can't do this or can't do that. No one handed me
anything.

Uh huh. Sure.

People that sit around blaming others, get no where. Lead, help, or get
out of the way.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:52:08 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Sorry, but putting a roof over the kid's head is part of taking care
of the kid and failing to do so is neglecting the kid.

Part of parenting is to see that the children are educated so they will not
have to live in a cardboard box.

And you think the public schools are going to accomplish that by
fining the parents if they don't come to meetings?

Swingman wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
|
|| Sounds as if the Texan educators are sufficiently technophobic that
|| they daren't punch up a phone number when they have something to
|| say to a parent. I'm glad that isn't so daunting to teachers
|| everywhere.
|
| Hey, Bubba ... watch it! It's a statistical fact that most of the
| folks now residing here in Texas are not "Texans".
|
| Besides, I won't defend the "educators" because they themselves are
| often the product of a successive generational increase in parental
| irresponsibilty which currently, and clearly, manifests itself in
| public schools in this country, and not just in Texas.
|
| The proposal is unquestionably distasteful, but it is an attempt to
| address a problem that is growing here to the point it that it will
| take distasteful action to solve.
|
| Got any alternative suggestions/solutions?

Yes I do; but I don't know of any _quick_ fixes. Parents who don't
believe or who don't recognize the importance of education for their
offspring constitute the /solvable/ part of the problem - the ones who
just don't give a damn constitute a part of the problem for which the
only solution is a change of parents.

The solvable part of the problem lies in a prior failure to properly
educate the parents to understand the importance of their kids'
education. It seems to me inappropriate to punish a person for being
inadequately educated. The quickest solution might be to remedy the
prior failure to educate the parent - but I'm not sure how that might
be accomplished; and I'm almost certain that the effort would not be
universally effective.

The longer term and IMO more effective solution is to ensure that all
students are imbued with an understanding of the importance of
knowledge - and of _why_ they are taught what they're taught - and
what value that knowledge has in their world beyond school. /This/ is
what too many parents missed out on; and it's what _must_ be remedied
in teaching their kids.

Need evidence? It's really easy to come by - just ask kids what
courses they're taking; then for each course ask each kid: "Why're you
studying /that/? What's it good /for/? How will knowing /that/ change
your life?" Every "I don't know" you hear identifies a candidate for
the next generation of non-believing/non-recognizing parents.

The problem is _not_ solved by criminalizing the parent nor by
imposing $500 worth of hardship on the family.

|| Also sounds as if Rep. Smith hankers to appear important/powerful
|| by criminalizing and (perhaps further) economically handicapping
|| those who don't do what he thinks they should.
|
|| Since justice has to do with equity (hence the scales in Justice's
|| hand - along with the sword), it would be interesting to hear Rep.
|| Smith expound on the justice of his bill - and to establish that
|| $500 is, in fact, a fair and reasonable valuation of the stood-up
|| teacher's time. Perhaps that valuation could be used, in turn, to
|| arrive at a new salary schedule for Texas teachers. \
|| I'm not sure that I think much of that criminalization stuff, tho.
|| But then, perhaps the Texans - or the Texas Legislature - feels
|| that they really do need more citizens with criminal records.
|| Presumably, a person with a criminal record is easier to
|| intimidate and control...
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping government out of daily
| life, but let's look at it at another angle:
|
| I just paid $6.3K and some change in 2006 HISD school taxes two
| days ago ... believe me, with a kid in college, it hurt financially
| to do that public duty, which I have no philosophical problem with
| doing.

Only because you recognize that there is an adequate degree of equity.
You forked out $6K and seem to feel that in return the HISD provides a
fair return - for which your hard-earned money was well (if painfully)
spent.

| Now, you tell me why irresponsible parents, whose kids disrupt the
| classroom so no others can learn and thereby rob me/my kids of the
| value of my hard earned tax dollar spent on education, should NOT
| have to pay in some manner for their irresponsible parenting?

Ok. I'll be glad to tell you as soon as you explain to me how each of
those irresponsible parents came to be that way. Clue: It isn't simple
ornryness.

| ... and _particularly_ when they REFUSE to show up to discuss the
| problem!
|
| Hell, you fine someone for not showing up at traffic court, why not
| a parent/teacher conference?

Because the person summoned to appear in traffic court stands accused
of having violated some law - which is a very different situation than
not showing up for a meeting. Not showing up for a mutually
agreed-upon meeting is an inconsiderate display of bad manners; but
it's not a crime.

| Which is more important?
|
| That something has to be done is unquestionable ... got any
| alternative suggestions?

I agree that something needs to be done. I'm neither legislator nor
educator; so my suggestions don't carry a great deal of weight - but
they're listed above.

| BTW, this is NOT personal, Morris ... the fact that you're a good
| guy shines through all the BS on both sides.

I taught high school math for about six weeks as a substitute (one of
the most exhilerating experiences of my life) and managed to get all
four years of students excited about coming to math classes every day.
I found out after the fact that a couple of the classes had asked for
a meeting and crowded into the Principal's office to ask that I be
made their permanent math teacher. The only thing I did differently
was to make sure they understood _why_ we studied each topic and how
mastering the course material might affect their lives. That tiny bit
extra was all they needed!

We're all mostly good guys/gals - the essential difficulty lies in
finding out what the problems really are; and in trying to puzzle out
how much of each problem /can/ be solved.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Sorry, but putting a roof over the kid's head is part of taking care
of the kid and failing to do so is neglecting the kid.

Part of parenting is to see that the children are educated so they will
not
have to live in a cardboard box.

And you think the public schools are going to accomplish that by
fining the parents if they don't come to meetings?

No, but not showing up for other reasons is not good parenting either.
Fines or not, parents must take some interest and responsibility for their
children's education.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:02:11 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Sorry, but putting a roof over the kid's head is part of taking care
of the kid and failing to do so is neglecting the kid.

Part of parenting is to see that the children are educated so they will
not
have to live in a cardboard box.

And you think the public schools are going to accomplish that by
fining the parents if they don't come to meetings?

No, but not showing up for other reasons is not good parenting either.
Fines or not, parents must take some interest and responsibility for their
children's education.

Do you see fining them for not showing up for meetings to be the way
to do that?

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:21:56 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Swingman wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
|
|| Sounds as if the Texan educators are sufficiently technophobic that
|| they daren't punch up a phone number when they have something to
|| say to a parent. I'm glad that isn't so daunting to teachers
|| everywhere.
|
| Hey, Bubba ... watch it! It's a statistical fact that most of the
| folks now residing here in Texas are not "Texans".
|
| Besides, I won't defend the "educators" because they themselves are
| often the product of a successive generational increase in parental
| irresponsibilty which currently, and clearly, manifests itself in
| public schools in this country, and not just in Texas.
|
| The proposal is unquestionably distasteful, but it is an attempt to
| address a problem that is growing here to the point it that it will
| take distasteful action to solve.
|
| Got any alternative suggestions/solutions?

Yes I do; but I don't know of any _quick_ fixes. Parents who don't
believe or who don't recognize the importance of education for their
offspring constitute the /solvable/ part of the problem - the ones who
just don't give a damn constitute a part of the problem for which the
only solution is a change of parents.

The solvable part of the problem lies in a prior failure to properly
educate the parents

A period here would suffice.

The schools had those parents for 12 years and the thing that amazes
me is that those parents are willing to let that system get its hands
on _their_ kids.

education. It seems to me inappropriate to punish a person for being
inadequately educated. The quickest solution might be to remedy the
prior failure to educate the parent - but I'm not sure how that might
be accomplished; and I'm almost certain that the effort would not be
universally effective.

First, shoot the "educators" and the education professors and the
education theorists and burn all the education texts and start over
with a clean slate--it would be difficult for them to do worse than
what we have now.

The longer term and IMO more effective solution is to ensure that all
students are imbued with an understanding of the importance of
knowledge - and of _why_ they are taught what they're taught - and
what value that knowledge has in their world beyond school. /This/ is
what too many parents missed out on; and it's what _must_ be remedied
in teaching their kids.

And this won't happen until the teachers actually _know_ from first
hand experience what value that knowledge has in their world beyond
school. And that can't happen as long as most teachers go from school
to teachers' college to teaching school without ever once having to
find out how to apply that knowledge themselves.

Need evidence? It's really easy to come by - just ask kids what
courses they're taking; then for each course ask each kid: "Why're you
studying /that/? What's it good /for/? How will knowing /that/ change
your life?" Every "I don't know" you hear identifies a candidate for
the next generation of non-believing/non-recognizing parents.

Oh, the kids know why they're taking the courses. Because each one
takes them one step closer to escaping from durance vile.

The problem is _not_ solved by criminalizing the parent nor by
imposing $500 worth of hardship on the family.

|| Also sounds as if Rep. Smith hankers to appear important/powerful
|| by criminalizing and (perhaps further) economically handicapping
|| those who don't do what he thinks they should.
|
|| Since justice has to do with equity (hence the scales in Justice's
|| hand - along with the sword), it would be interesting to hear Rep.
|| Smith expound on the justice of his bill - and to establish that
|| $500 is, in fact, a fair and reasonable valuation of the stood-up
|| teacher's time. Perhaps that valuation could be used, in turn, to
|| arrive at a new salary schedule for Texas teachers. \
|| I'm not sure that I think much of that criminalization stuff, tho.
|| But then, perhaps the Texans - or the Texas Legislature - feels
|| that they really do need more citizens with criminal records.
|| Presumably, a person with a criminal record is easier to
|| intimidate and control...
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping government out of daily
| life, but let's look at it at another angle:
|
| I just paid $6.3K and some change in 2006 HISD school taxes two
| days ago ... believe me, with a kid in college, it hurt financially
| to do that public duty, which I have no philosophical problem with
| doing.

Only because you recognize that there is an adequate degree of equity.
You forked out $6K and seem to feel that in return the HISD provides a
fair return - for which your hard-earned money was well (if painfully)
spent.

| Now, you tell me why irresponsible parents, whose kids disrupt the
| classroom so no others can learn and thereby rob me/my kids of the
| value of my hard earned tax dollar spent on education, should NOT
| have to pay in some manner for their irresponsible parenting?

Ok. I'll be glad to tell you as soon as you explain to me how each of
those irresponsible parents came to be that way. Clue: It isn't simple
ornryness.

| ... and _particularly_ when they REFUSE to show up to discuss the
| problem!
|
| Hell, you fine someone for not showing up at traffic court, why not
| a parent/teacher conference?

Because the person summoned to appear in traffic court stands accused
of having violated some law - which is a very different situation than
not showing up for a meeting. Not showing up for a mutually
agreed-upon meeting is an inconsiderate display of bad manners; but
it's not a crime.

| Which is more important?
|
| That something has to be done is unquestionable ... got any
| alternative suggestions?

I agree that something needs to be done. I'm neither legislator nor
educator; so my suggestions don't carry a great deal of weight - but
they're listed above.

| BTW, this is NOT personal, Morris ... the fact that you're a good
| guy shines through all the BS on both sides.

I taught high school math for about six weeks as a substitute (one of
the most exhilerating experiences of my life) and managed to get all
four years of students excited about coming to math classes every day.
I found out after the fact that a couple of the classes had asked for
a meeting and crowded into the Principal's office to ask that I be
made their permanent math teacher. The only thing I did differently
was to make sure they understood _why_ we studied each topic and how
mastering the course material might affect their lives. That tiny bit
extra was all they needed!

And that's the difference between you and a typical schoolteacher. You
actually _know_ how to apply that math to real-world problems.

We're all mostly good guys/gals - the essential difficulty lies in
finding out what the problems really are; and in trying to puzzle out
how much of each problem /can/ be solved.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:36:53 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:30:29 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
. ..


Trouble is that thanks to bussing kids all over Hell's half acre, some
parents can't _get_ to the frelling school. Poor people in the inner
city don't always have cars to drive to the suburban paradise that the
courts have decided is appropriate for schooling their kids, and the
school bus may be the _only_ bus that goes near there. Was the school
willing to send a bus to pick up the parent?


I agree that bussing is stupid but that a long buss trip for the parent is
simply one more lame excuse for not tending to your child's needs.

If one can take a long bus trip there's no problem. The nearest bus
stop to any school around here is about 5 miles from the school. One
has to walk both ways if one doesn't have a car.

There is plenty of before hand warning of the consequences if a parent
misses a meeting. If it would present a hardship to attend a meeting for my
child's benefit I would see to it the my child understood what a hardship it
would be to attend a meeting far from home.
Its time to quit making excuses for not taking care of our children.

So how does someone with no car and limited income get to a school
that does not have a bus stop nearby?


Please, you are now reduced to making up ridiculous "what-ifs" to support
a really bad premise, making excuses for the bad behavior of the
"downtrodden". I would be reasonably certain that were there extenuating
circumstances such as these, the school would work with the parents
involved to resolve such issues. In a practical sense, it is seldom people
who are in this level of distress who have the problems the legislator is
trying to address.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:21:56 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
/

The schools had those parents for 12 years and the thing that amazes
me is that those parents are willing to let that system get its hands
on _their_ kids.

The school never saw the many of the parents. A large percentage of the
parents did not live in the US untill very recently.




First, shoot the "educators" and the education professors and the
education theorists and burn all the education texts and start over
with a clean slate--it would be difficult for them to do worse than
what we have now.

Brilliant, do you really expect any one to take you seriousely?

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 3, 12:28 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

We live in South Texas, and in some areas of the state business is
mainly manufacturing and agriculture. So my questions to him a if
all are educated, who will pick our lettuce? Who will pick the
grapefruits and pack them for shipping? Who will clean up my jobsites
and load the dumpsters? Who will prime and paint the bumpers at the
truck bumper plants? Who will clean the live animal pens at the meat
packing plant, and who will clean the guts up from the killing and
first gutting floor at the slaugher house? Who will hold the "SLOW"
sign that you see when going through a small road construction
project?

If the jobs need to be done and you have no one to fill them raise the price
you are willing to pay and they will line up for the work. So currently if
lettuce is 89 cents a head with a $6 picker, the price might go up a bit if
they had to pay $10 or $20 for a picker but the market would find it's
price.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

J. Clarke wrote:

| The schools had those parents for 12 years and the thing that amazes
| me is that those parents are willing to let that system get its
| hands on _their_ kids.

Well, actually the parents don't have (or don't think they have) a
choice.

| First, shoot the "educators" and the education professors and the
| education theorists and burn all the education texts and start over
| with a clean slate--it would be difficult for them to do worse than
| what we have now.

Even in Texas I don't think you can do that. It's important to
remember that no matter where you're going, you can only start from
where you are. I suspect (but don't actually know) that Texas'
educators could do a lot worse than is being done now. I'll also guess
that there are ways to make *huge* improvements without spending very
much.

How many Texas school districts are tapping into local (volunteer)
resources to add substance to their programs? For example, the HISD
sits in what must be an ocean of "rocket scientists" and engineers
posessed of awesome math and computer skills - people who know for a
fact that with the right intellectual tools, not even the sky is a
limit. It's probably worth asking: "How many times in how many years
has the HISD tapped that wealth of knowledge and enthusiasm so that
it's students might catch fire?"

| And this won't happen until the teachers actually _know_ from first
| hand experience what value that knowledge has in their world beyond
| school. And that can't happen as long as most teachers go from
| school to teachers' college to teaching school without ever once
| having to find out how to apply that knowledge themselves.

I don't want to hear someone say that this isn't a solvable problem.
All you're talking about here is getting teachers a little exposure to
the world outside their classrooms! Perhaps it'd be worth developing
an internship program and mandating three months of participation in
field-related work prior to granting a masters degree in education...

| Oh, the kids know why they're taking the courses. Because each one
| takes them one step closer to escaping from durance vile.

Regrettably each step along _this_ path leads down, rather than up.
Kids need to know that they're not wasting their time in school. Being
kids, they need to experience some excitement in learning, they need
to feel the thrill of discovery - and, above all, they need to
recognize that they are capable of accomplishing worthwhile things.
_This_ is the path /up/!

|| only thing I did differently was to make sure they understood
|| _why_ we studied each topic and how mastering the course material
|| might affect their lives. That tiny bit extra was all they needed!
|
| And that's the difference between you and a typical schoolteacher.
| You actually _know_ how to apply that math to real-world problems.

So? Let's ask The Big Question: "What can be done to help
teachers-to-be gain that experience/perspective?"

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:34:31 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

| The schools had those parents for 12 years and the thing that amazes
| me is that those parents are willing to let that system get its
| hands on _their_ kids.

Well, actually the parents don't have (or don't think they have) a
choice.

Skipping country is always an option.

| First, shoot the "educators" and the education professors and the
| education theorists and burn all the education texts and start over
| with a clean slate--it would be difficult for them to do worse than
| what we have now.

Even in Texas I don't think you can do that. It's important to
remember that no matter where you're going, you can only start from
where you are. I suspect (but don't actually know) that Texas'
educators could do a lot worse than is being done now. I'll also guess
that there are ways to make *huge* improvements without spending very
much.

Of course there are, but does the theory on which educators are
operating allow it?

How many Texas school districts are tapping into local (volunteer)
resources to add substance to their programs? For example, the HISD
sits in what must be an ocean of "rocket scientists" and engineers
posessed of awesome math and computer skills - people who know for a
fact that with the right intellectual tools, not even the sky is a
limit. It's probably worth asking: "How many times in how many years
has the HISD tapped that wealth of knowledge and enthusiasm so that
it's students might catch fire?"

Do any of those engineers and scientists have teaching certificates in
math or "computer literacy"? If not then they aren't "qualified". My
high school chemistry and physics teacher was associated with the
Manhattan Project. One year she was not allowed to teach physics or
chemistry because according to some piece of education-theoretical
bureaucratic nonsense she wasn't "qualified", while Johnny Mac "the
only physics I ever took was Ex-Lax" the football coach was according
to the rules "qualfiied" and so he taught physics and chemistry.

| And this won't happen until the teachers actually _know_ from first
| hand experience what value that knowledge has in their world beyond
| school. And that can't happen as long as most teachers go from
| school to teachers' college to teaching school without ever once
| having to find out how to apply that knowledge themselves.

I don't want to hear someone say that this isn't a solvable problem.

The trouble is getting there from here without going somewhere else
first.

All you're talking about here is getting teachers a little exposure to
the world outside their classrooms!

First you have to convince the educational theorists that the teacher
actually has to have such experience, until then they'll fight you
tooth and claw.

Perhaps it'd be worth developing
an internship program and mandating three months of participation in
field-related work prior to granting a masters degree in education...

How many teachers have a master's degree?

| Oh, the kids know why they're taking the courses. Because each one
| takes them one step closer to escaping from durance vile.

Regrettably each step along _this_ path leads down, rather than up.

Unfortunately. Personally I maintained a good enough average to be
accepted to Annapolis and Georgia Tech, but if someone had burned the
school to the ground I'd have been the first to thank him.

Kids need to know that they're not wasting their time in school.

To convince them of that first you have to be sure that they _aren't_
wasting their time.

Being
kids, they need to experience some excitement in learning, they need
to feel the thrill of discovery - and, above all, they need to
recognize that they are capable of accomplishing worthwhile things.
_This_ is the path /up/!

Oh, they recognize that they are capable of accomplishing worthwhile
things. The trouble is that instead of accomplishing worthwhile
things they're stuck in school.

|| only thing I did differently was to make sure they understood
|| _why_ we studied each topic and how mastering the course material
|| might affect their lives. That tiny bit extra was all they needed!
|
| And that's the difference between you and a typical schoolteacher.
| You actually _know_ how to apply that math to real-world problems.

So? Let's ask The Big Question: "What can be done to help
teachers-to-be gain that experience/perspective?"

And the answer, alas, begins with shooting all the education
theorists.

Of course there's also the "them as can do, them as can't teach"
issue--any teacher who can get a job that gains that experience and
perspective is unlikely to give it up to teach school.

Leon wrote:
"Myxylplyk" wrote in message
...

Leon, I'm sorry but your credibility just nosed dived here.

This is SO beyond anything close to an acceptable answer that it's
laughable.
You really think that good parenting, like morals, can be legislated?
Wake up.

People that habitually ignore the teacher will not give the meeting any
effort.
Attend or be fined? They'll show up and play cards or something.

The idea that a civil authority thought this was a real way to do
something useful for
children's education is nuts. He should be impeached.


The schools simply want the parents involved and especially when the kid
gets into trouble.
You might as well **** your pants because you child has to go to school
also.


Parent involvement is important for many students.
However, a law that would fine a parent for not
meeting with a teacher (excepting a meeting with a
teacher and a policeman or one set by a judge to
discuss a crime or illegal act) is not only stupid
but most likely illegal in any state.

Leon wrote:
"Martin K" wrote in message
news:h12xh.213$yI1.128@trndny01...
Leon wrote:


Well, one thing for sure, parents will not agree to meet with the teacher,
always with plenty of reason why they can't schedule the
meeting.

Yeah, and another thing is for sure also. If the parents start being fined,
99.9% of those excuses will start to disappear. The parents are going to
have the opportunity to schedule the meeting.


Probably not. What will happen is a huge law suit
in which every person that pays taxes loses and
maybe a few educators also lose their jobs.

On Feb 3, 6:32 pm, "Roger Shoaf" wrote:

SNIP

Who will hold the "SLOW"
sign that you see when going through a small road construction
project?

If the jobs need to be done and you have no one to fill them raise the price
you are willing to pay and they will line up for the work. So currently if
lettuce is 89 cents a head with a $6 picker, the price might go up a bit if
they had to pay $10 or $20 for a picker but the market would find it's
price.

--

Roger Shoaf


Roger... judging by the lack of response here, you may be the only one
that didn't get that the particular paragraph you quoted was tongue in
cheek. Of course I don't advocate generations of mindless idiots
doing menial jobs for a living. I am one of those who still believe
you should be all you can be.

God forbid we raise more generations of lettuce pickers and sign
carriers simply because their parents are too lazy to take advantage
of the opportunities for themselves and their kids.

Sorry for the confusion.

Robert

On Feb 3, 6:36�am, "George" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

My best buddy is a teacher in a disadvantaged district, and believe
me, people like you make his job easy. *Less than 30% of the parents
that make appts. to see him show. *That's right, less than 30%. *The
students that need a parent/teacher/prinicpal conference are not his
star students, and he feels since their parents have sent them to the
school to be raised rather than taking that on themselves (hey... they
just pumped 'em out), the school should get a little help with the
kids. *Most likely source in their unenlightened eyes are the
parents. *Progress reports go unanswered; emails ignored; phone calls
are unreturned.

Yep, the ones who attend conferences are the parents of the kids whose
effort and results are generally the best. *Can't say it publicly, or in the
lounge, which might be wired, *because it's not the position of the NEA, but
over partitions in the john most teachers will confess to believing that
parental concern may be the reason for the kids' positive outcome.

Sometimes it's the village idiot who wants to raise your kids, what?

I have to agree with the intent of the law, but...first, sometimes it
is the village idiot who HAS the kids, and making that idiot attend
teacher/parent meetings or pay a fine they probably don't have the
money to meet is a typical asinine government response.

This is not a matter for legislation. When I was a kid, and belonged
to a Republican organization called Young Americans for Freedom (YAF),
the idea was to keep government out of the individual citizen's life
as much as possible. Today's Republican Party seems to be doing just
the opposite, from education to bedroom.

On Feb 3, 1:16�pm, "Leon" wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

news


If one can take a long bus trip there's no problem. *The nearest bus
stop to any school around here is about 5 miles from the school. *One
has to walk both ways if one doesn't have a car.

If you are truely interested in you child's welfare and don't want a $500
fine you will find a way to get there. *Plain and simple.



So how does someone with no car and limited income get to a school
that does not have a bus stop nearby?

Come on THINK, *the first thin that comes to mind is to ask for a freind or
neighbor for a ride.



There are going to be a million other reasons this would be inconvenient
for
the parents. *My suggestion is to take steps to see to it that your child
stays out of trouble.

Like what? *When some bully punches your kid out and your kid is
accused by the bully and his friends of starting the fight, how can
anything you do prevent that?

Were you one of those people that always needed some one else to solve your
problems.

Are you one of the people who cannot understand that others do not
have the resources that upper-middle class families have, including
friends who can give rides? On one point, you want someone to ask for
help. On another, you want them to solve their own problems.

That doesn't make any more sense than does legislating attendance at
school meetings..

On Feb 3, 2:22�pm, "Leon" wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

...



If you are truely interested in you child's welfare and don't want a $500
fine you will find a way to get there. *Plain and simple.

How.

Think!



Come on THINK, *the first thin that comes to mind is to ask for a freind
or
neighbor for a ride.

And why would any of them have cars?

You are not thinking are you?



Were you one of those people that always needed some one else to solve
your
problems.

If nobody needs anybody to solve their problems then why does the
teacher need the parent to solve her problems?

You apparently don't get it. *It's not the teachers problem, *is the parents
and child's problem.

I love it. You don't have a solution, so you demand someone else
"think".

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.

On 3 Feb 2007 23:11:34 -0800, "
wrote:

On Feb 3, 6:32 pm, "Roger Shoaf" wrote:

SNIP

Who will hold the "SLOW"
sign that you see when going through a small road construction
project?

If the jobs need to be done and you have no one to fill them raise the price
you are willing to pay and they will line up for the work. So currently if
lettuce is 89 cents a head with a $6 picker, the price might go up a bit if
they had to pay $10 or $20 for a picker but the market would find it's
price.

--

Roger Shoaf


Roger... judging by the lack of response here, you may be the only one
that didn't get that the particular paragraph you quoted was tongue in
cheek. Of course I don't advocate generations of mindless idiots
doing menial jobs for a living. I am one of those who still believe
you should be all you can be.

God forbid we raise more generations of lettuce pickers and sign
carriers simply because their parents are too lazy to take advantage
of the opportunities for themselves and their kids.

Sorry for the confusion.

Around here the SLOW sign is held by whatever hapless cop got on the
watch captain's **** list.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007 18:59:01 -0800, "
wrote:




Pretty much indicates where you are coming from

Parents Who Skip School Meetings Could Be Fined

AUSTIN, Texas -- Parents bewa Miss a meeting with your child's
teacher
and it could cost you a $500 fine and a criminal record.



I can see where this may be a good idea. Particularly in schools that
are having "behavioral" problems with students whose parents are barely
older than the children the school is trying to educate. What is a school
to do when you have a discipline problem with a child and the parents
continually avoid meeting with the teacher? Since education is mandatory
and provided at taxpayer expense, there are some responsibilities that
parents should assume.

Of course the application of this law needs to be reasonable. Trying to
apply it to a parent who has an emergency situation the first time a
meeting is scheduled should not result in a fine, after the second or third
missed meeting however, it seems that the school should have some recourse.


I agree with you, Mark. I do understand that things can happen to stop
a parent from having a meeting, but when it happens over and over, that
plain ****es me off.

I open the shop for my kids at 6:30 AM, but classes don't start until
7:31. I always have a pretty good number of kids who come in early to
work on a project in a less crowded atmosphere than the regular class
situation. I think this is good. This is also the time I can give to
some of my special ed kids one-on-one. (BTW, I only have two of these
who come in on a regular basis, but the progress these kids are making
would astound you.) It really ****es me off when I have to throw my
kids who want to do extra work out of the shop so that I can meet with
the parents of some turd of a kid who doesn't want to work in my class,
or any other for that matter, and then I have to wait until they show
up. Parents have stood me up more frequently than they have shown up,
and that just isn't right.

Non-related, but a drive by gloat anyway. I have one kid, a 1b, who
loves class. Last week he showed me his plans for his next project and
it included hand cut dovetails. He came in early Thurs. and Fri. and
sat for about 45 minutes, picking pieces from the scrap box, and
practiced cutting dovetails. He's not there yet, but they are getting
better. You gotta love a kid like that.

Glen

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
All you're talking about here is getting teachers a little exposure to
the world outside their classrooms!

First you have to convince the educational theorists that the teacher
actually has to have such experience, until then they'll fight you
tooth and claw.

Perhaps it'd be worth developing
an internship program and mandating three months of participation in
field-related work prior to granting a masters degree in education...

How many teachers have a master's degree?


Only a tenured one would try. The way union rules are constructed, people
with advanced degrees cannot be hired except at a higher rate of pay. Once
tenured, even with a guaranteed pay raise for life, only around 20% in my
state complete a masters. Teachers by and large are not academically
oriented.

Then there's the matter of what that advanced degree would consist of.
Having been there, it's a sorry set of feel-good no-fail most often no
research or paper courses designed to make it easy to get through, leaving a
money trail behind for the university. It's really disheartening to hear
the traditional "is this material going to be on the test" question posed
even in these classes by those seeking the most gain for the least effort.
If the teacher, and that's what they are, _teachers_, education is the
integration and internalization of knowledge, has this attitude, how can
they expect their pupils to react otherwise in their classrooms?

Even "professional development" courses which were conceived of as a way to
expose teachers to new methods rather than new information are going under
here, because the Intermediate School District tasked with providing them
has money problems, and won't pay for the subs and mileage. They're paying
for aides and special effort to teach the unreachable with that money.
Seems counterintuitive to spend increasingly on an individual kid, rather
than on the teacher who touches all of them, but that's what's happening,
and with the cooperation of the teachers themselves.

Then there are those like the people talking "constitution" and "law" to
deal with. They can't understand that with no obligation on those receiving
the money and effort to participate in obtaining a positive outcome, it's
merely sand down the rathole. Trouble is, such talk infects the parents and
kids with its arrogance and contempt for individual obligation every time
"rights" to the public purse, free of obligation, are mentioned.

Last time I checked, non-appearance in court resulted in forfeiture of bail
and the issuance of an arrest warrant. So the difference is?

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...

Are you one of the people who cannot understand that others do not
have the resources that upper-middle class families have, including
friends who can give rides? On one point, you want someone to ask for
help. On another, you want them to solve their own problems.

That doesn't make any more sense than does legislating attendance at
school meetings..


Yeah Charlie, I think that you are probably right. My child is now out of
public school and none of this really concerns me any more. My child did
well so that is all that really matters to me. We really should ignore the
problem with school violence and poor attendance because that is how it has
been and will always be. Lets not do some thing so drastic at to require
parents to be accountable for their kids actions. Heck lets not even make
the kids go to school because the family is too poor to make it with out
their kids contributing to the family income.

Further, this law that is being proposed in a city close to Houston seems to
be getting more support from the community that it will involve than those
that will not be affected.

All these dam laws just get in the way and cramp my style.

J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:34:31 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| J. Clarke wrote:
||
||| The schools had those parents for 12 years and the thing that
||| amazes me is that those parents are willing to let that system
||| get its hands on _their_ kids.
||
|| Well, actually the parents don't have (or don't think they have) a
|| choice.
|
| Skipping country is always an option.

Well, I'm trying to figure out how we might improve our system.
Running away from problems hardly ever constitutes a solution. As much
as our educational system needs improvement, it's worth noting that
there are places in the world where universal education hasn't been a
priority. I left home after ninth grade because, at that time, there
was no tenth grade anywhere in the country where I was living.

||| First, shoot the "educators" and the education professors and the
||| education theorists and burn all the education texts and start
||| over with a clean slate--it would be difficult for them to do
||| worse than what we have now.
||
|| Even in Texas I don't think you can do that. It's important to
|| remember that no matter where you're going, you can only start from
|| where you are. I suspect (but don't actually know) that Texas'
|| educators could do a lot worse than is being done now. I'll also
|| guess that there are ways to make *huge* improvements without
|| spending very much.
|
| Of course there are, but does the theory on which educators are
| operating allow it?

I'm not familiar with "the theory". I am sure that at least some
states frameworks _do_ allow a certain amount of flexibility in how
educational objectives are met.

|| How many Texas school districts are tapping into local (volunteer)
|| resources to add substance to their programs? For example, the HISD
|| sits in what must be an ocean of "rocket scientists" and engineers
|| posessed of awesome math and computer skills - people who know for
|| a fact that with the right intellectual tools, not even the sky is
|| a limit. It's probably worth asking: "How many times in how many
|| years has the HISD tapped that wealth of knowledge and enthusiasm
|| so that it's students might catch fire?"
|
| Do any of those engineers and scientists have teaching certificates
| in math or "computer literacy"? If not then they aren't
| "qualified". My high school chemistry and physics teacher was
| associated with the Manhattan Project. One year she was not
| allowed to teach physics or chemistry because according to some
| piece of education-theoretical bureaucratic nonsense she wasn't
| "qualified", while Johnny Mac "the only physics I ever took was
| Ex-Lax" the football coach was according to the rules "qualfiied"
| and so he taught physics and chemistry.

In at least some states it's acceptable for non-certified persons to
contribute to the instructional program provided a regular teacher is
present. At least one state does not require the presence of the
regular teacher; and at least one state allows (or used to allow
non-certified persons to substitute on a limited-term (temporary)
basis for regular teachers.

This isn't new stuff. AFAIK, most schools tap their local police and
fire departments for help in presenting safety information - partly
because these people know what they're talking about; and partly for
the "wow" factor for the kids.

||| And this won't happen until the teachers actually _know_ from
||| first hand experience what value that knowledge has in their
||| world beyond school. And that can't happen as long as most
||| teachers go from school to teachers' college to teaching school
||| without ever once having to find out how to apply that knowledge
||| themselves.
||
|| I don't want to hear someone say that this isn't a solvable
|| problem.
|
| The trouble is getting there from here without going somewhere else
| first.

The route _may_ turn out to be indirect; and that's ok provided that
it doesn't lead the young folks into danger. I said early-on that I
didn't know of any quick fixes.

|| All you're talking about here is getting teachers a little
|| exposure to the world outside their classrooms!
|
| First you have to convince the educational theorists that the
| teacher actually has to have such experience, until then they'll
| fight you tooth and claw.

Not necessarily true (unless you're going for a quick fix by making
sweeping changes). First we need to convince teachers and school
boards that such experience would be of significant benefit to
students and teachers; and we need to find some way to reward teachers
for expending the time and energy required. Cash would be good; but a
"golden apple" and enhanced professional/community standing might go a
long way.

|| Perhaps it'd be worth developing
|| an internship program and mandating three months of participation
|| in field-related work prior to granting a masters degree in
|| education...
|
| How many teachers have a master's degree?

I've known a bunch; but have no idea of the actual number.

||| Oh, the kids know why they're taking the courses. Because each
||| one takes them one step closer to escaping from durance vile.
||
|| Regrettably each step along _this_ path leads down, rather than up.
|
| Unfortunately. Personally I maintained a good enough average to be
| accepted to Annapolis and Georgia Tech, but if someone had burned
| the school to the ground I'd have been the first to thank him.
|
|| Kids need to know that they're not wasting their time in school.
|
| To convince them of that first you have to be sure that they
| _aren't_ wasting their time.

They aren't wasting their time - perhaps that's difficult to grasp if
you haven't lived in a country with a 10% literacy rate - the problems
lie in delivering the best return on their time and energy and helping
them to perceive the value of both their investment and the lifetime
return on that investment.

It's a real challenge. Kids see things in the short term and have
difficulty seeing beyond the immediate. One remedy (the only one I've
found) is to "grow" their knowledge at a pace such that they find
excitement in their own progress. My experience has been that once
kids discover that learning can be exciting, it's difficult to hold
'em back and the teaching challenge is to keep 'em from running into
blind alleys.

|| Being
|| kids, they need to experience some excitement in learning, they
|| need to feel the thrill of discovery - and, above all, they need to
|| recognize that they are capable of accomplishing worthwhile things.
|| _This_ is the path /up/!
|
| Oh, they recognize that they are capable of accomplishing worthwhile
| things. The trouble is that instead of accomplishing worthwhile
| things they're stuck in school.

And so the problem becomes one of _encouraging_ them to do worthwhile
things _in_ school and to exert adult leadership in guiding them in
constructive directions while they're students. It's important to
always remember that kids are our intellectual equals - and that the
only "advantages" we have are the body of factual knowledge we've
acquired since we were in school and whatever wisdom (experience of
consequence) we managed to accumulate.

|||| only thing I did differently was to make sure they understood
|||| _why_ we studied each topic and how mastering the course material
|||| might affect their lives. That tiny bit extra was all they
|||| needed!
|||
||| And that's the difference between you and a typical schoolteacher.
||| You actually _know_ how to apply that math to real-world problems.
||
|| So? Let's ask The Big Question: "What can be done to help
|| teachers-to-be gain that experience/perspective?"
|
| And the answer, alas, begins with shooting all the education
| theorists.

I think you're too focused on these (remote) theorists and need to
refocus on how we can better meet the educational needs of the kids in
front of us here and now.

| Of course there's also the "them as can do, them as can't teach"
| issue--any teacher who can get a job that gains that experience and
| perspective is unlikely to give it up to teach school.

I won't argue with you on that. Instead, let me say a couple of words
about my high school chemistry teacher: Doc Johnson was a scrawny
shiny-headed old guy who loved chemistry and after a long career as a
research chemist for either Dow or DuPont (I can't remember which) he
retired to share his love with young people. About the time he arrived
I decided that I'd rather take chemistry than biology, so ended up in
one of his first classes. I struggled all the way through the course
and was probably a PIA to have in class - but Doc prevailed and,
somehow, I managed a passing grade. There were three points worth
noting on the last day of class: [1] Doc Johnson never gave any sign
of disappointment in how I performed; [2] I wasn't terribly proud of
the grade I'd earned; and [3] neither Doc Johnson nor I had difficulty
recognizing that my knowledge of basic chemistry had grown
considerably since the previous September. I was glad the course was
over and put the memory of it behind me the following year as I
started in on physics...

....until time for college boards. I needed to take a science exam and
was only partway through my year of physics. I opted to take the
chemistry test only because I'd already finished the course; but I
hope to tell you that I had some serious misgivings. I didn't feel a
bit better after taking the exam and wondered how much damage I might
have done to my chances for getting into college.

Results arrived an eternity (probably only a couple of months) later.
I ran into Doc Johnson in the hallway (not realizing that the results
had also been made available to him) and got a big smile: "Nice job,
Morris. Your 798 was about what I'd expected. Keep up the good work,"
and he walked away down the hall.

There's a point to all this: Doc Johnson did, indeed, have a doctorate
in chemistry; and, no, he had no teaching credentials - but the fact
is that it is possible to both do _and_ teach - and to do both well.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Len" wrote in message
...



You child is more important than any job or rent.

Tell that to Social Services when they come to take your kids
away because you got fired for taking time off to attend one
of
these meetings, and you can afford to feed them any more.

Len

Has that happened to you? Don't make up a problem before it
exists.


No, it hasn't happened to me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
happen.

One of my neighbors, a divorced mom, took time off from one of
her two jobs to take one of her kids to the emergency room. Even
though she called in to explain the situation, she was fired for
being late to work. One thing led to another, and Social Services
was called in.

So don't denigrate problems of a type that DO exist just because
they are outside of your experience.

Len

"Leon" writes:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...

Are you one of the people who cannot understand that others do not
have the resources that upper-middle class families have, including
friends who can give rides? On one point, you want someone to ask for
help. On another, you want them to solve their own problems.

They should at least be able to attend a telephone conference.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Quite a discussion going on. I seem to have missed the
logical answer. Vouchers, and let folks who don't like
public school rules or education quality vote with
their feet.

Although my kids are grown with families of their own,
I still have a stake in the school system. I help with
the grandkids' tuition so they can attend a Catholic
school (and I'm Lutheran). The plan is to continue
until they reach the 8th grade.

John

--
wrote in message
ps.com...
| Only the Texas GOP could produce such a ****tard.
|
| Parents Who Skip School Meetings Could Be Fined
|
| AUSTIN, Texas -- Parents bewa Miss a meeting with
your child's
| teacher
| and it could cost you a $500 fine and a criminal
record.
|
| A Republican state lawmaker from Baytown has filed a
bill that would
| charge
| parents of public school students with a misdemeanor
and fine them for
| playing hooky from a scheduled parent-teacher
conference.
|
| Rep. Wayne Smith said Wednesday he wants to get
parents involved in
| their
| child's education.
|
| "I think it helps the kids for the parents and
teachers to
| communicate.
| That's all the intent was," Smith said.
|