Leon wrote:
Sounds like a good idea to me. Your child is more important than anything
else in the world. If it takes a $500 fine to get the parents to be
responsible then so be it.


Fining them is easy. Collecting the fine is another story.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On 4 Feb 2007 02:14:10 -0800, "Charlie Self" wrote:

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

ups.com...
.... snip
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.


I'm not sure why you feel that in this case, it's not a matter for
legislation when what is being addressed is a problem with beneficiaries of
a taxpayer-funded program (free education) whose lack of participation is
raising its cost and decreasing its value to those who are participating.
That is one of the areas where legislation seems reasonably applied.

What is funny here is all the people getting their panties in a wad over
attempting to address this problem but no ire has been addressed toward the
school district in New Jersey that is instituting mandatory urinalysis of
students to check for alcohol consumption. That seems to be a wee bit more
intrusive and abusive of individual rights, freedoms, and freedom from
unreasonable search and seizure.


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

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

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

I think the $500 fine is ridiculous, but there are other ways
to encourage parents to meet with teachers. Parents are
"inconvenienced" (Certainly not the word I would choose, I think
"obligated" is more accurate) in all kinds of ways while raising their
kids. I would look at the way schools (in my area anyway) handle
vaccinations as a guide. If a kid doesn't have proper vaccinations,
he or she cannot attend school. If enough time passes without
the child in school, the truancy laws kick in.

The $500 fine could certainly be construed as unreasonable, but IMHO
keeping a child out of school until a parent meets with his or her
teacher or a school official is certainly a reasonable action. And
most jurisdictions already have truancy laws on the books.



--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

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

On Feb 3, 8:34?pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
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!

I've long wondered where this "get the teachers a little outside world
experience" BS came from.

Every teacher I know has worked somewhere other than in a school.
Every single one. Most kids who go on to become teachers do not come
from wildly priviliged backgrounds, so have to find a way to fund
college. Most of us do that by working. Many years ago, the HS math
teacher I was engaged to for a time had worked her way through college
as a waitress. While I only did sub teaching, I did a lot of different
things to get through college, including, I guess you could say,
spending four years in the Marines, loading trucks at night and
running a corner grocery store at night. My oldest stepdaughter worked
summers at a McDonald's--long enough ago that it wasn't a thing to
sneer at--and my grandson is helping fund his time at UVa working
summers for our local city as a computer whatever, while he also pays
some bills at school working on student' computers--officially. He's
study computer science and may well teach aspects of that subject.

All these people need to get a touch of real life.

Or maybe they need to relate their subjects to what they're doing. The
oldest stepdaughter teaches Latin, and every other year takes a group
of her students to Italy, Greece and similar areas to look at what has
resulted from the Greco-Roman bit. I can't speak for my former
fiancee, as I haven't seen or heard from her in more than 40 years,
but...all the teachers I know have had a touch or two of real life
during their ivory tower years.

I could wish for better actual subject knowledge for some teachers:
English teachers are the ones I catch out most often (which probably
makes a lot of sense). But, in general, they know what they have been
taught by the preceding generation of teachers, good or bad. When you
see the number of wildly different solutions that come up to a
moderately complex engineering question here, and elsewhere, on-line,
you have to wonder if just maybe the liberal arts aren't the only
subjects in need of more intensive and correct coverage, but that
seems to result more from college education lacks than lacks in high
school.

But not all fields translate directly to work: it is difficult to take
teacher who handles algebra and plane geometry in high school and
place them in a job that uses those fields without other training.
Same with most HS lab sciences. Yes, there are related jobs and the
subjects are vital. But, as we find with getting kids to understand
the relationship, it's not easy relating those subjects directly and
without additions to any particular job.

All in all, not a subject that is easily covered or a problem that is
easily solved.

You're going to have teachers who don't have a clue. You will have
other teachers who are sharp, can motivate kids, and do a wonderful
job. When these people are first hired, it's usually impossible to
tell the difference.

I do wonder if merit pay is some of the answer, just to stick a really
rough oar into the water of controversy.

On Feb 4, 1:46?pm, Bruce Barnett
wrote:
"Leon" writes:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
roups.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.


Where did "telephone conference" enter the discussion?

"Charlie Self" writes:

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.


Where did "telephone conference" enter the discussion?

Just now. If stead of requiring parents to attend a conference in
PERSON, just have them attend a conference in person, or by telephone.


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

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 04:19:51 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry) wrote:

I think the $500 fine is ridiculous, but there are other ways
to encourage parents to meet with teachers. Parents are
"inconvenienced" (Certainly not the word I would choose, I think
"obligated" is more accurate) in all kinds of ways while raising their
kids. I would look at the way schools (in my area anyway) handle
vaccinations as a guide. If a kid doesn't have proper vaccinations,
he or she cannot attend school. If enough time passes without
the child in school, the truancy laws kick in.

When I was a kid we got vaccinated at school unless the parents
instructed otherwise. And if the child is not in school because the
school won't allow the child on the premises, then the child is not
"truant".

The $500 fine could certainly be construed as unreasonable, but IMHO
keeping a child out of school until a parent meets with his or her
teacher or a school official is certainly a reasonable action. And
most jurisdictions already have truancy laws on the books.

"Keeping a child out of school until . . ." is called "suspension"
and a kid who has been "suspended" is not "truant"--in this state if a
kid is suspended or otherwise prohibited from attending school then
the school is obligated by law to provide tutoring at his home.

On 5 Feb 2007 03:21:59 -0800, "Charlie Self"
wrote:

On Feb 3, 8:34?pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
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!

I've long wondered where this "get the teachers a little outside world
experience" BS came from.

Every teacher I know has worked somewhere other than in a school.
Every single one. Most kids who go on to become teachers do not come
from wildly priviliged backgrounds, so have to find a way to fund
college. Most of us do that by working. Many years ago, the HS math
teacher I was engaged to for a time had worked her way through college
as a waitress.

And how did she apply what she learned in school to waitressing? How
did going to school help her get that job? Has she ever done anything
in which the subject that she is teaching was actually a bona-fide
occupational qualification? If not then how is she supposed to
convince the kids that it's useful for anything?

While I only did sub teaching, I did a lot of different
things to get through college, including, I guess you could say,
spending four years in the Marines, loading trucks at night and
running a corner grocery store at night.

And how did your public school education prepare you for this?

My oldest stepdaughter worked
summers at a McDonald's--long enough ago that it wasn't a thing to
sneer at

And her public school education helped her get this job by . . .?

--and my grandson is helping fund his time at UVa working
summers for our local city as a computer whatever,

Using the computer skills he learned in public school?

while he also pays
some bills at school working on student' computers--officially. He's
study computer science and may well teach aspects of that subject.

And public school prepared him for this by . . .?

All these people need to get a touch of real life.

Or maybe they need to relate their subjects to what they're doing. The
oldest stepdaughter teaches Latin, and every other year takes a group
of her students to Italy, Greece and similar areas to look at what has
resulted from the Greco-Roman bit.

Nice if you've got the budget for that.

I can't speak for my former
fiancee, as I haven't seen or heard from her in more than 40 years,
but...all the teachers I know have had a touch or two of real life
during their ivory tower years.

A touch or two of real life perhaps, but have they ever worked in a
position in which knowledge of the subject they teach was of
significant benefit in doing the job? That's where the problem lies.

One good one I had was an English teacher who was a former Marine
Drill Instructor. He was big on acting. And he could relate that to
the training of soldiers.

I could wish for better actual subject knowledge for some teachers:
English teachers are the ones I catch out most often (which probably
makes a lot of sense). But, in general, they know what they have been
taught by the preceding generation of teachers, good or bad. When you
see the number of wildly different solutions that come up to a
moderately complex engineering question here, and elsewhere, on-line,
you have to wonder if just maybe the liberal arts aren't the only
subjects in need of more intensive and correct coverage, but that
seems to result more from college education lacks than lacks in high
school.

In engineering any solution that meet the specs is "correct". Where
I see the problems arise _here_ is in misinterpreting or ignoring the
specs.

But not all fields translate directly to work: it is difficult to take
teacher who handles algebra and plane geometry in high school and
place them in a job that uses those fields without other training.

And they should know math beyond algebra and plane geometry. However
if they have worked a drafting job they'll know the value of both of
those in their own right.

Of course plane geometry properly taught isn't about geometry, it's
about the nature of proof--geometry class is the first and in many
cases the only time that a student is required to actually produce a
mathematically rigorous proof of anything.

Same with most HS lab sciences. Yes, there are related jobs and the
subjects are vital. But, as we find with getting kids to understand
the relationship, it's not easy relating those subjects directly and
without additions to any particular job.

And a trouble with those lab sciences is that the teachers generally
don't understand the scientific method themselves and so the emphasis
is on getting the right answer and not on the nature of experimental
science. The kid whose experiment is wildly in error and who learns
_why_ it is so far off gets more out of it than the ones who just do a
procedure and get the expected result.

My _college_ physics labs were run by a delightfully devious woman who
carefully contrived that the results be in error. She's file the
micrometers and cut the specimens out of square and so on and do it
just subtly enough that you didn't catch it by looking at the stuff.

All in all, not a subject that is easily covered or a problem that is
easily solved.

You're going to have teachers who don't have a clue. You will have
other teachers who are sharp, can motivate kids, and do a wonderful
job.

And the sharp ones generally burn out on the politics of the job early
on and either turn into mindless functionaries or find something else
to do that involves less politics.

When these people are first hired, it's usually impossible to
tell the difference.

I do wonder if merit pay is some of the answer, just to stick a really
rough oar into the water of controversy.

If it can actually be assigned on the basis of merit and not on who is
the most skillful toady.

Larry wrote:
I think the $500 fine is ridiculous, but there are other ways
to encourage parents to meet with teachers. Parents are
"inconvenienced" (Certainly not the word I would choose, I think
"obligated" is more accurate) in all kinds of ways while raising their
kids. I would look at the way schools (in my area anyway) handle
vaccinations as a guide. If a kid doesn't have proper vaccinations,
he or she cannot attend school. If enough time passes without
the child in school, the truancy laws kick in.


First, vaccination is a public health issue, the rationale for requiring
them is to protect al the students from potential epidemics. There is
no similar public health issue respecting parents meeting with teachers.
Second, at least in my state, parents can affirmative refuse to have
their children vaccinated, and the schools have to take them anyway.


The $500 fine could certainly be construed as unreasonable, but IMHO
keeping a child out of school until a parent meets with his or her
teacher or a school official is certainly a reasonable action.

The goal of education is, well, to educate. Please explain how
suspending a child from school as a bludgeon to force parents to meet
with teachers furthers that goal.

And most jurisdictions already have truancy laws on the books.


Which do not apply to the situation when a child does not attend school
because the government has ordered him not to attend. So what's your
poihnt here?

On Feb 5, 6:33?am, "Charlie Self" wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:46?pm, Bruce Barnett

wrote:
"Leon" writes:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
roups.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.

Where did "telephone conference" enter the discussion?

I think the discussion had to do with a Texas law that posits a $500
fine, and doesn't mention telephone, at least not as presented
earlier.

The phone concept might or might not work: it is close to impossible
to identify a voice on the telephone, for one thing, without some
fairly sophisticated gear.

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

I think the discussion had to do with a Texas law that posits a $500
fine, and doesn't mention telephone, at least not as presented
earlier.

The phone concept might or might not work: it is close to impossible
to identify a voice on the telephone, for one thing, without some
fairly sophisticated gear.


Since the OP neglected to leave out the details and chose to reword in order
to stir up the ****, see the link and play the local news coverage of the
proposal.


http://www.click2houston.com/video/10897482/index.html

First of all, the parent is NOT forced into dropping what he is doing to
meet with the school about his child.
The parent will get to choose from 3 different periods of time to meet with
the school.
The parent WILL be able to call and cancel if he or she has a reasonable
reason to miss the agreed upon meeting time. Reasonable is defined as
something like a medical emergency.
The fine is imposed after the parent makes the meeting and does not show up.

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

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

No, I gave a solution, hitch a ride with a neighbor, friend. public
transportation. I refused to keep presenting solutions because JClarke
spends all his effort being contrary and making excuses why he or some one
can't do this or that. I asked him to think rather than make up excuses.
Can't will always prevent a solution. Again, where there is a will, there
is a way and especially when my child is involved. If necessary, the $500
fine will certainly provide a mojority the will if it has to go that far.
If I were in a situation where I absolutely could not find a way to make ANY
meetings I would certainly start talking with my kids NOW about staying out
of and how to stay out of trouble.


Actually, it is the teacher's problem as much as it is the child's and
parent's problem. It is also society's problem, but legislation is not
the way to correct it, and may well be un-Constitutional. I know us
liberals are always tossing up the Constitution, Leon, but it's there
and is the basis for our laws. At least it it mostly was before Shrub
took office.

Because of the restrictions imposed on all teachers against disciplining
their students in Texas public schools the problem is getting worse. Too
many parents did not want their children disciplined but none offered any
possible solutions to getting their kids to act civilized.
The line needs to be drawn as to how much these kids are going to get away
with. Parental involvement is key whether the parents like it or not.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

The fine is imposed after the parent makes the meeting and does not show
up.




Correction,

The fine is imposed after the parent makes the meeting and does not show up
AND DOES NOT NOTIFY THE SCHOOL THAT HE WILL NOT SHOW UP FOR THE SCHEDULED
MEETING.

On 5 Feb 2007 13:19:05 -0800, "Charlie Self"
wrote:

On Feb 5, 6:33?am, "Charlie Self" wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:46?pm, Bruce Barnett

wrote:
"Leon" writes:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
roups.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.

Where did "telephone conference" enter the discussion?

I think the discussion had to do with a Texas law that posits a $500
fine, and doesn't mention telephone, at least not as presented
earlier.

The phone concept might or might not work: it is close to impossible
to identify a voice on the telephone, for one thing, without some
fairly sophisticated gear.

Uh, why would one need to "identify a voice on the telephone"? This
is getting crazy.

J. Clarke writes:

The phone concept might or might not work: it is close to impossible
to identify a voice on the telephone, for one thing, without some
fairly sophisticated gear.

Uh, why would one need to "identify a voice on the telephone"? This
is getting crazy.

Agreed. After all - how do they identify a parent in person?

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

On Feb 5, 5:43�pm, J. Clarke wrote:
On 5 Feb 2007 13:19:05 -0800, "Charlie Self"
wrote:





On Feb 5, 6:33?am, "Charlie Self" wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:46?pm, Bruce Barnett

wrote:
"Leon" writes:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
roups.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.

Where did "telephone conference" enter the discussion?

I think the discussion had to do with a Texas law that posits a $500
fine, and doesn't mention telephone, at least not as presented
earlier.

The phone concept might or might not work: it is close to impossible
to identify a voice on the telephone, for one thing, without some
fairly sophisticated gear.

Uh, why would one need to "identify a voice on the telephone"? *This
is getting crazy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It got crazy when someone decided a 500 buck fine was appropriate for
not making a meeting with a schoolteacher.

On Feb 5, 8:05�pm, Bruce Barnett
wrote:
J. Clarke writes:
The phone concept might or might not work: it is close to impossible
to identify a voice on the telephone, for one thing, without some
fairly sophisticated gear.

Uh, why would one need to "identify a voice on the telephone"? *This
is getting crazy.

Agreed. After all - how do they identify a parent in person?



Usually by having attending parents go through the school office,
where they show ID if they aren't already known. Hard to do when a
telephone is used.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:58:02 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

Larry wrote:
I think the $500 fine is ridiculous, but there are other ways
to encourage parents to meet with teachers. Parents are
"inconvenienced" (Certainly not the word I would choose, I think
"obligated" is more accurate) in all kinds of ways while raising their
kids. I would look at the way schools (in my area anyway) handle
vaccinations as a guide. If a kid doesn't have proper vaccinations,
he or she cannot attend school. If enough time passes without
the child in school, the truancy laws kick in.


First, vaccination is a public health issue, the rationale for requiring
them is to protect al the students from potential epidemics. There is
no similar public health issue respecting parents meeting with teachers.
Second, at least in my state, parents can affirmative refuse to have
their children vaccinated, and the schools have to take them anyway.


The $500 fine could certainly be construed as unreasonable, but IMHO
keeping a child out of school until a parent meets with his or her
teacher or a school official is certainly a reasonable action.

The goal of education is, well, to educate. Please explain how
suspending a child from school as a bludgeon to force parents to meet
with teachers furthers that goal.


Given that most likely the purpose for the "conference" is to resolve a
behavioral problem, the suspending of that child's access to school is
going to facilitate the education of the remaining children in that child's
classes.



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

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

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

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...
It got crazy when someone decided a 500 buck fine was appropriate for
not making a meeting with a schoolteacher.


Or crazy changing the whole jest of the new law.

The fine is after making the appointment and not calling to cancel.

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

"Leon" wrote in message
t...

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...
It got crazy when someone decided a 500 buck fine was appropriate for
not making a meeting with a schoolteacher.


Or crazy changing the whole jest of the new law.



Make that gist. ;~)

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Given that most likely the purpose for the "conference" is to resolve a
behavioral problem, the suspending of that child's access to school is
going to facilitate the education of the remaining children in that child's
classes.

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

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

We are not a middle or upper income neighborhood - quite the contrary as
more then 62% of our 390-ish students are federally defined as
economically disadvantaged.

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

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

On Feb 5, 11:10?pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

oups.com...
It got crazy when someone decided a 500 buck fine was appropriate for
not making a meeting with a schoolteacher.

Or crazy changing the whole jest of the new law.

The fine is after making the appointment and not calling to cancel.

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

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

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

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.

"Leon" wrote in message
. net...

"Leon" wrote in message
t...

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...
It got crazy when someone decided a 500 buck fine was appropriate for
not making a meeting with a schoolteacher.


Or crazy changing the whole jest of the new law.



Make that gist. ;~)
J 'st did.

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

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/05...ion=cnn_latest

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
We are not a middle or upper income neighborhood - quite the contrary as
more then 62% of our 390-ish students are federally defined as
economically disadvantaged.


You get more money that way. Federal money doesn't have to go through the
local taxpayers for approval.

Of course I never believed the "depraved on account of he's deprived"
argument, either. Some of the nicest and most motivated kids wore clothes
that St Vinnies had declared unsaleable.

"George" wrote in message
t...


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

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/05...ion=cnn_latest



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

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

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 5, 11:10?pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

oups.com...
It got crazy when someone decided a 500 buck fine was appropriate for
not making a meeting with a schoolteacher.

Or crazy changing the whole jest of the new law.

The fine is after making the appointment and not calling to cancel.

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

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

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


There has to be some assumption the parent is forced to make an
appointment, because otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever to fine
them for missing a voluntary meeting.

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



Sure, it wastes some of the
teacher's time, but that's been going on for a long, long, long time
and will continue regardless of sanctions.

Maybe.



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

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

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

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:28:10 +0000 (UTC),
(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.

If the school system has expelled the child from the schools then the
school system no longer has the authority to demand _anything_. If
the school system wants a child who has been expelled to be provided
an education that complies with state standards it is up to the school
system to either readmit that child to the schools or to provide
tutors at home on their dime. They're not allowed to have it both
ways--if they aren't willing to provide the child an education then
they in general don't have the right to demand that anybody else do
what they refuse to do.

My daughter was
homeschooled for a few years so I have some familiarity with those
requirements.

Was she homeschooled because you removed her from the publuc schools
or was it because the public schools expelled her? If it was the
former then you are _not_ familiar with the situation involving a
child who has been expelled from the schools.

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.

Perhaps they do, but expelling the child from the school is not one of
them.

Leon wrote:

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

The end justifies the means?

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

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

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

The end justifies the means?

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



Sometimes we have to swallow a bitter pill on they way to where we need to
be.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

I tend to agree with Mencken here.

This is nothing but another attempt to install responsibility by
government fiat, and cannot work.

LOL ... that's pretty much the focus of both religion and government since
Moses came packing down that mountain.

But you're right, it often doesn't work.

But only because of sporadic enforcement by any authority not interested in
doing the job ... and that goes for parents who fail to teach "responsibity"
because they have none themselves.

Parents are financially responsible for property damage caused by their
children in most places ... why not for damage to the education of others?

What hasn't worked is throwing taxpayer's dollars at the situation.

You gotta break the cycle somewhere, so what the hell, I say make
irresponsible parents get off their asses, turn off Jerry Springer, and pay
through the nose for failing to live up to their responsibilities.

****'em ... what it boils down to is that I'm damn tired of paying the
freight to pull their sorry ass wagons through society.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/02/07

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
Leon wrote:

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

The end justifies the means?

In law and religion it most often does.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/02/07

Leon wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| Leon wrote:
||
||| While I don't like government to be involved any more than the
||| next person, something has to be done and right or wrong you have
||| to start some where.
||
|| The end justifies the means?
|
| Sometimes we have to swallow a bitter pill on they way to where we
| need to be.

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

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

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

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

Swingman wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
|| Leon wrote:
||
||| While I don't like government to be involved any more than the
||| next person, something has to be done and right or wrong you have
||| to start some where.
||
|| The end justifies the means?
|
| In law and religion it most often does.

And the consequences have been ... ?

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

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
|| Leon wrote:
||
||| While I don't like government to be involved any more than the
||| next person, something has to be done and right or wrong you have
||| to start some where.
||
|| The end justifies the means?
|
| In law and religion it most often does.

And the consequences have been ... ?

_Irresponsibility_

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


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/02/07

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
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?


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

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

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:33:06 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Leon wrote:

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

The end justifies the means?

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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
If the school system has expelled the child from the schools then the
school system no longer has the authority to demand _anything_. If
the school system wants a child who has been expelled to be provided
an education that complies with state standards it is up to the school
system to either readmit that child to the schools or to provide
tutors at home on their dime. They're not allowed to have it both
ways--if they aren't willing to provide the child an education then
they in general don't have the right to demand that anybody else do
what they refuse to do.

After retirement I ended up tutoring a sociopath who had repeatedly
threatened both classmates and staff, resulting in expulsion. Twice during
the semester the police arrived and arrested him while tutoring sessions
were in progress. He did pass the two courses and get a certificate, but
the last few sessions were conducted in the county lockup. One of the
courses was the required civics course.

He's currently in long-term incarceration in Arizona....

Charlie Self wrote:


Every teacher I know has worked somewhere other than in a school.
Every single one. Most kids who go on to become teachers do not come
from wildly priviliged backgrounds, so have to find a way to fund
college.

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

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

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

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

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