Leon wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message

So Government is going to confiscate half a month's wages of a poor single
working mother, to punish her for a lack of common courtesy?

How about taking that line from what I said out of context.
NO. Reread what I wrote. The parent chooses from 3 dates. Adter choosing
a date and setting the appointment and they do not attend and do not call
to cancel with a reasonable excuse the fine is then imposed.


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



The teacher's already on salary, so a parental no'show doesn't cost the
government anything. And the teacher is probably grading homework while
waiting for the parent to show, so he/she doesn't really lose time anyway.
If any time was lost, it would be maybe 15 minutes, If a teacher's time is
worth $30/hour, that works out to $7.50 worth of lost time, tops.


Um, the teacher may be doing this on his or her time after hours. I know
plenty that do.

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


The parents no show costs plenty.

Not in money, it doesn't.


The child learns that it is OK that your word meanins nothing.

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

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



And for that you want the government to take food off the
child's table, and clothes off its back?

No I want the parent to be punished and take away his drug, and alcohol
money.

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



Maybe if the druggy parents lost their drug money he would spend
more sober time looking after his kids.

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

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message


I wonder what would have been the result if you had made an
appointment with the parent, who faild to show and was fined $500 as a
result? Would the fine have straightened out this problem child? Or
would it have bred more resentment in him, leading to even worse
consequences?


To do nothing in fear of "worse consequences" is a cowards attitude,

So now your level of discourse is reduced to name calling. Yeah, that's
a persuasive argument. NOT.

Horse****! ... nothing in that sentence refers to you. You imagined any
likeness, and only you know if the shoe pinches.


a non-starter for solving any problem, and a good way to guarantee their
continuance.

My point was that in this example, a system of punishing the parent for
not meeting with the teacher would not have benefitted the student.

Your "point" is actually blunt supposition/opinion, to which you are
certainly entitled,

The example was that of a child who was a sociopath.

You on the right thread? Read the subject line to refresh your memory.

but which provably has no basis whatsoever in fact.

Now who's dealing in rank speculation? Please explain how taking money
from a parent who misses a meeting with a child will benefit a
sociopathic child.

You're losing sight of what this thread is actually about,

LOL ... never mind. Go back the first sentence and try again.

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

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message

| What we _do_ know as FACT: The current system, which does nothing
| to hold an irresponsible parent accountable, is not working.

Are you saying that the system _will_ be working after enacting this
piece of legislation?

If you had read the next sentence, instead of leaving it out, you would have
answered your own question.

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

Leon wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..


So now your level of discourse is reduced to name calling. Yeah, that's a
persuasive argument. NOT.

Name calling is usey to tease ot antagonize. Swingman is not trying to
tease or antagonize.

To do wrong rather than do nothing, out of a sense that you have to do
"something," is wrong.

And who is the judge of wrong? YOU? ;~) Doing nothing about a wrong
situation is always wrong. Doing something always has a 50/50 chance of
being right.


Name calling is also used as a cathersis for the name-caller, when he
runs out of reasoned argument, to make him feel that he is doing
something rather than doing nothing. Which, according to your
argument, gives the name-caller a 50/50 chance of being right. Which
illustrates the fallacy of your argument.

Another example. I see a woman in the mall, yelling at her child,
calling it names and telling it other spiteful things, until the child
breaks into tears. According to you, doing nothing about a wrong
situation is always wrong. So it would be wrong for me to do nothing.
So, I grab the mother's purse and take $500 out as a "fine." OR, I
punch her in the mouth. OR, I grab the child and run out of the mall.
After all, I'm doing something rather than doing nothing, so whatever I
do, according to you, I have a 50/50 chance of being right. Right?
According to you, of course right.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:12:16 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

The complete text of the regulations can be found

Sigh... G

Do you know any public school teachers? Will any of them talk to you?

I know several, one in the Biblical sense.

Ask them to explain it to you slowly. The minimum requirements lead to
two bachelors or a masters.

Read the regulations. The requirement is "either a master's degree or
at least 30 semester hours of graduate credit".

I don't teach pigs to sing, and I'm not interested in having minor
details picked to death, so I'm really not interested in playing.

In other words when presented with the regulations rather than read
them and find out what they say, and show me that I'm wrong, you'll
bluster and call me names. That says that you aren't really sure of
your ground and are more interested in "winning" than in determining
the truth.

Man, there is some really weird opinons here. So much vitriol... and
you can really smell the differevces in people and their respective
generations, and for those playing the rec.woodworking home version
for some time, it has to be fascinating to see the personalities
reveal themselves. It sure has been for me.

I am surprised to see here that so many think that the only ones
affected by this would be homeless Asian lesbian single mothers of two
that have 3 eight hour a day minimum wage jobs that they ride the bus
to every day. All of those folks seem to work for pitiless tyrants
that perch like vultures waiting for any infraction to fire them.

In the rough and tumble world of blue collar construction workers, it
works like this at my company: "Hey Robert... can I have a long lunch
on Wednesday? The boy got his dumbass in trouble again, and me and
the old lady need to go meet his teacher before he falls to far
behind". It is Monday.. they show me some consideration, so it is
mutual. "Yeah, go ahead... just get back as soon as you can." Or I
may have to ask him to move it up or down a day or move the time of
day. I am not blowing my own horn; it is good business and employee
relations in the 21st century.

Strangely, all the construction companies I know operate this
way. It makes good employee relations, and that almost always comes
back to you. But there is another aspect, too. If I said no, they
would go anyway. Many of them are like me, without a strong family
life, so the in turn have made the decision that they kid will have
what they did not.

Also, as a card carrying member of the great unwashed like me, those
same guys see the value of education. They tell their kids what I was
told as a kid by my father. "You listen to me... I go to work every
day to feed, clothe and put a roof over your head. So does your
mother. If you think you are going to barely slide through school
when all you have to do is pay attention and do your homework to get
by, you have another thing coming". I paraphrased, and left out all
the colorful metaphors.

My Dad went to one parent teacher conference, and after the special
consultation he had with me when we got home, I made myself scarce
around the house for about a month. It straightened me out for
another three, too.

Having done a lot of work for school teachers (you get referrals from
one, and they are a referring bunch!) I have had a chance to talk to
many of them across the economic range. Believe me, it isn't just the
poor, downtrodden, and economically disadvantaged that miss these
meetings. Busy soccor moms, cheerleader moms, football moms and
dads, moms and dads with more than one kid, all seem to have great
reasons for not wanting to meet. I love what these teachers of our
upper class tell me the responses are when meetings are missed.

"I thought you would call me and remind me of the meeting"

"Well, since I already missed it, can you email me something?"

"I talked to my kid and he says he will take care of whatever it is
you are calling me about"

"Do you have a supervisor? I think this is something we can handle on
the phone and I have just enough time right now"

I don't know about anyone else's community, buy in ours the well to do
have just as many problems as the not so well to do. In fact, I think
in my almost 35 years as a blue collar man, the blue collar system has
less problems with the kids.

Someway, some educators got in their minds that face to face is better
than telephone conferences, etc. That has been a long held belief
here in sunny Texas for years and years. Ever since I can remember,
and certainly when I was a kiddo, we had telephones and telephone
consultations would have been used if effective.

In some school districts, the teacher (!) want this fine, as THEY are
getting blamed when the parents don't show up. They are bound to ahe
a certain amount of contact with each parent of their (average in
Texas is I believe 164 in high school) kids every semester. They are
further bound by the rules of their district to approach parents when
they cannot control or teach their kids. So whether they want to or
not, they are actively involved in the contacting of parents whether
it is an innocuous update or for discourse on a subject of greater
gravity.

The guys here should know too, that no one here thinks in their hearts
the fines will provide THE key to parental involvement. It will
provide impetus for some, and not for others. But the guy that wrote
the bill is a bit of an idealist, surrounded by other idealists, and
he felt like they would be successful it they just reached a handful
of parents they wouldn't have otherwise seen. Really, his bill has
almost no chance of passing, but was meant to engage people in
constructive commentary and to draw attention to the problem. Also,
having heard the man speak, in his bleeding heart it is a cry of
concern for the children.

In one way, it sounds too thin to me as it will not doubt take
millions to implement the plan, fight off the lawsuits filed by the
ACLU, etc. and for me, I am at all sure these kids and their parents
are worth my tax dollars. You cannot legislate the interest of the
parents, nor undo years of culture and parental upbringing with a
fine. A fine or two probably won't change the parenting efforts of
most adults. If the parents are raised a certain way, chances are
they will raise their kids that way.
In years past, rich, poor, middle class, and all in between made time
for their kids when they wanted. I don't think the parents of this
school generation of kids are any different; they will be as involved
as they want to be.

And if parents want to ecourage their kids to be successful, and have
the courage to insist on the type of discipline that makes success
happens, they will do it on their own.

In Texas, they have tried all kinds of plans, programs, ideas, rules,
etc., to make the parents more involved over the years. Politicians
have thumped the podiums telling us of why we need more money and
ideas thrown at our education system, and how we need to get parents
more involved. "Parental involvement is the key to success" they
say. But none of the ideas they have are more than moderately (at
best) successful in engaging the parents into the process of
education. (But God bless 'em, I would have given up long ago. Some
of those guys keep pitchin' year after year.)

So I guess the real question here to me is this:

If we just save a few kids, and I mean just a few, is it worth it to
the average guy on the street? Should hundreds of thousands be spent
to make this a bill, then the same spent again to implement it as a
law, and maybe millions in attorney's fees to defend the state against
the lawsuits that will surely come?

I dunno. I don't think we will have a bill that becomes a law to test
that, but I am not too sure I am interested in finding out the results
for a few million bucks.

Now if someone could come up with a surefire solution that would work
without doubt, I might get behind it. I am sure others would, too.
But until then...

Robert

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...

Name calling is also used as a cathersis for the name-caller, when he runs
out of reasoned argument, to make him feel that he is doing something
rather than doing nothing. Which, according to your argument, gives the
name-caller a 50/50 chance of being right.

Which is better than be in just plain wrong.



Another example. I see a woman in the mall, yelling at her child, calling
it names and telling it other spiteful things, until the child breaks into
tears. According to you, doing nothing about a wrong situation is always
wrong.

I have aproached women with unruley kids in the grocery store and offered to
help. Neighborhood kids also. the wome are most often very appreciative.
Seldom does a woman want to be the opject of observation for unruley kids.

So it would be wrong for me to do nothing.

If it was a cronic problem like it is in the schools, yes.

So, I grab the mother's purse and take $500 out as a "fine." OR, I punch
her in the mouth. OR, I grab the child and run out of the mall.

Then you would be breaking the law. That is wrong.
Are you really this simple or just argumenatitive?


After all, I'm doing something rather than doing nothing, so whatever I
do, according to you, I have a 50/50 chance of being right. Right?
According to you, of course right.

Try offering to help. That woud be doing something and right

Subject

It is a given that the public schools are a mess; however, the last
place to get ideas to fix them is from the resident of 1600
Pennsylvania Ave and his cronies.

They have created enough problems.

Lew

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

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

Because the teachers do not teach the kids to be disruptive, the next
responsible person in line is the parent. A majority of the time a student
that is disruptive does not have enough adult supervision. the teacher
cannot devote as much attention as the parent. The reason to fine the
parents is because most all measures in getting the parent involved have
been exhaulsted.
If a 12 year old child torches a neighbors car, should the parent not be
called to take action? School should be prepairing our kids for real life.
Unfortunately undisiplined kids have a rude awaking when they get into the
real world and have to face the concequences of their actions. That is
mostly thier parents fault. We like to think that it is some one elses
responsibility but no one is more responsible than the parent. Teachers are
paid to teach. Shall we help them do their jobs?



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

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

That actually would very very often be far in excess of $500. I live in a
very modest sized home, 1,300 ft. and a majority of my neighbors live in
like sized homes. For a fact a couple of my close neighbors gross in excess
of $200,000.
I feel a fine that gets the parents attention would be the best method and I
am still up for reinvesting the parent's fine into the tutoring of his child
into what ever area the childs needs along with more parental involvement.



|| I'd like to suggest that in the context of purely good intention,
|| the distinction between "right or wrong" is of considerable
|| importance. Would you have your state and your schools teach
|| otherwise?
|
| I agree that the difference between right and wrong is totally what
| we are going for. If the kids see that non parental involvement is
| a problem perhaps the parents standing up to help with their kids
| will also teach what is right.

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

I do not for one second think that the proposed legislation will be good for
all kids. Regardless of what happens there are going to be some that are
left behind but doing nothing will be worse for more.


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

There is a difference between lawful and unlawful acts.

"Leon" wrote in message

There is a difference between lawful and unlawful acts.

What I like about the proposal doesn't even outweigh what I dislike about
it, but the fact that it does not involve money flowing _out_ of the
government to solve a problem ...but the contrary ... and that it is
financially punitive to the irresponsible and not the responsible, is its
appeal to me that convinces me that it may indeed, be worth a shot.

But, admittedly a long shot at that ... but lawd knows nothing else has
worked.

And none of the arguments I've seen here have come close to dissuading me
from any of the above ... as well meaning as most of the participants are.

This has been an interesting discussion, but there appears to be some
acrimony creeping in, and, since the weather is nice and I no longer need
flames from the wRec to keep me warm, I'm gonna bow out.

Y'all have a nice day ... hehehe

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

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..
Leon wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message

So Government is going to confiscate half a month's wages of a poor
single working mother, to punish her for a lack of common courtesy?

How about taking that line from what I said out of context.
NO. Reread what I wrote. The parent chooses from 3 dates. Adter
choosing a date and setting the appointment and they do not attend and
do not call to cancel with a reasonable excuse the fine is then imposed.


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

I did not say that you did not understand, I indicated that you took what I
said out of context. I have said it 2 times for you. The parent has a
problem concerning his child. He agrees to an appointment and agrees to
attend the meeting. If he then does not show and does not call and cancel
with a reasonable excuse he will be fined. The fact that I mentioned common
courtesy is perhaps a benefit of living in Texas.
The fact that the parent did not show up for the meeting that he scheduled
SHOULD be reason enough for the fine. The proposed law goes an extra step
in favor of the parent and lets the parent get out of the scheduled meeting
by calling and canceling. If the parent fails to show up "and" fails to
cancel with a reasonable excuse the fine is issued.





The teacher's already on salary, so a parental no'show doesn't cost the
government anything. And the teacher is probably grading homework while
waiting for the parent to show, so he/she doesn't really lose time
anyway. If any time was lost, it would be maybe 15 minutes, If a
teacher's time is worth $30/hour, that works out to $7.50 worth of lost
time, tops.


Um, the teacher may be doing this on his or her time after hours. I know
plenty that do.

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

Not in Texas, where the law is being proposed. I very often met with a
teacher at night if I needed to talk to the teacher.



The parents no show costs plenty.

Not in money, it doesn't.

do you understand that the cost is not a direct one???? Do you think
prisons run for free? Who do you think it is that pays for welfare?



The child learns that it is OK that your word meanins nothing.

Who says the child even knows an appointment was made, yet alone that it
was not kept?

Kids are not as stupid as you may believe. They know what is going on.
Typically a note is sent home with the child long before meetings are
suggested.



If you start basing arguments based on all kinds of
assumed facts like that, does it mean I can do the same thing?

What assumed fact? If the parent breaks promices to the school he certainly
has done it time and time again.




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


I can see your problem now.





And for that you want the government to take food off the
child's table, and clothes off its back?

No I want the parent to be punished and take away his drug, and alcohol
money.

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


No, I am trying to talk on a level that you seem to understand better.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
link.net...
Subject

It is a given that the public schools are a mess; however, the last place
to get ideas to fix them is from the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and
his cronies.

They have created enough problems.

Lew


And while I agree,

Do we,

A. Do nothing?
B. What do you propose?

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote in message

There is a difference between lawful and unlawful acts.

What I like about the proposal doesn't even outweigh what I dislike about
it, but the fact that it does not involve money flowing _out_ of the
government to solve a problem ...but the contrary ... and that it is
financially punitive to the irresponsible and not the responsible, is its
appeal to me that convinces me that it may indeed, be worth a shot.

I am thinking that if ****es off enough parents they might get involved in
coming up with a solution that involves parents and teachers that will work.

But, admittedly a long shot at that ... but lawd knows nothing else has
worked.

Exactly.



And none of the arguments I've seen here have come close to dissuading me
from any of the above ... as well meaning as most of the participants are.

With the exception of a few, all the arguments shine the light on why a law
like this has been proposed.
Let's not make excuses for the parents that have the problem children. Let
them speak for them selves.

Leon wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| Swingman wrote:
|
||
|| Might be getting a bit emotional here - I haven't heard anyone
|| advocate in favor of doing nothing to solve the problem - only
|| opinions to the effect that Rep. Smith's proposed solution is a bit
|| heavy-handed. If holding that opinion makes one a coward, then put
|| me at the top of the list.
|
| I think what makes it emotional is that this is a proposal that is
| in a state that has problems that others may not have. Some of us
| are darn tired to educating illegal's children and them not
| participating physically or economically. Then there are the gangs
| and the parents that do not care. True, no one has really in so
| many words advocated that doing nothing would solve the problem.
| The fact is, NO one has suggested anything at all as an
| alternative. They have simply slamed this proposal and 98% will
| not be affected regardless of how it turns out in Texas.

I'm sure that it won't surprise you to hear that the situation isn't
limited to Texas. Texas and California probably have the greatest
number; but it's become an issue everywhere - and I think more people
will be affected than you'd guess.

Interestingly, the illegals up here seem eager to participate; and the
general attitude toward them is anything but hostile. It may be that
the climate does some kind of sorting - or it may just be some kind of
(agri)cultural affinity.

|| Thus far, all that's been presented has been supposition/opinion
|| (for both pro and con) - including the notion that missing a
|| parent-teacher conference defines parental irresponsibility to an
|| extent worthy of criminal prosecution, the notion that a $500 fine
|| is reasonable and just, the notion that levying such a fine will
|| solve the problem, and the notion that this particular solution
|| won't invoke the law of unintended consequences.
|
| So what would you consider a fair penalty that would get the
| parrents attention and his active participation in the social up
| bringing of his child? I would be interested in hearing a better
| one.

I took a shot at this further downthread; but don't know whether my
suggestion would be an improvement or not. Some demographic/economic
info would certainly make thoughtful discussion much easier - and it
sounds as if there's a lot more heat than light being radiated.

| I think that if the parents would have not ignored the cry's it
| would not have gotten this far in the first place.

Agreed. Since you raised the issue of illegal aliens (I'm assuming
Mexican), I've been wondering if lack of proficiency in English and/or
fear of being deported might not be significant factors...

| How about impose the $500 fine but it can be paid out over 12
| months and all of the money goes directly back toward that childs
| education and supervision that he needs. Or the parent pays the
| fine and gets the money back after his child's behavior and grades
| has become acceptable.

If you're determined to get that $500 fine, how about payback when the
youngster graduates from high school - or payback with interest in the
form of tuition vouchers if the youngster has been admitted to a
college degree program? No high school graduation, no payback at all.
This approach might constructively address several problems at one
time.

| I am totally up for suggestions.
| The real shame is that it has had to come this far to get the
| parents attention.

I agreee - but it's important to not let pent-up frustration lead us
to produce problems worse than the one we're trying to solve.

||| What we _do_ know as FACT: The current system, which does nothing
||| to hold an irresponsible parent accountable, is not working.
||
|| Are you saying that the system _will_ be working after enacting
|| this piece of legislation?
|
| No, nothing guarantees that. There are no guarantees in life
| except that if we do not get involved in our childrens education
| and behavior it will continue to get worse.

The question was rhetorical. FYI, this parent made a point of getting
together with a group of his kids' teachers for coffee every Friday
after school. Poor kids couldn't do anything their dad didn't hear
about. :-)

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

Leon wrote:

And while I agree,

Do we,

A. Do nothing?
B. What do you propose?

IMHO, the problem starts with the litigious society we live in.

If a teacher looks the wrong way at a kid, they get sued.

More than once I got dressed down by a teacher and damn well knew
enough to keep it to myself.

If my parents found out, it was better than even money my dad would
have kicked my ass into the next state, never mind county.

Labor unions have and do serve a valid purpose; however, the teacher's
unions have gotten out of hand.

The school administrations have become lazy. There is no incentive to
be good stewards of the monies they are given.

The waste due to poor management runs rampant.

There are two extremes of the chain of command.

The shortest is the Catholic church. (The Pope to the Bishop to the
Priest)

The longest is the army. It is a long chain of command from the
president to a buck private.

Our schools need to be somewhere in between, probably closer to the
Catholic church than the army, IMHO.

To summarize, they is plenty of blame to go around.

The schools, the teachers, and the parents are all at fault.

When and if the parents are willing to assume some responsibility and
thus be able to demand a better product, they will get it.

Till then, good luck.

Lew

In article ,
"George" wrote:

Yes, many of our children are eligible for free or reduced breakfasts
and lunches. We also receive additional State/Federal funds for part
time in-classroom support over other schools in our district among other
things.

Is this fair that one school receives additional State and Federal
support?

Is any scheme for income redistribution "fair?" It's the law. That'll have
to do for those of us who respect the principle of rule by law, if not the
individual law.

Well, George, how can you have equitable education for all if you don't
redistribute? I know, let's fund all schools up to the amount the lowest
taxbase neighborhood generates and eliminate all fundraisers - tadaah!
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
link.net...

IMHO, the problem starts with the litigious society we live in.

If a teacher looks the wrong way at a kid, they get sued.

More than once I got dressed down by a teacher and damn well knew enough
to keep it to myself.

If my parents found out, it was better than even money my dad would have
kicked my ass into the next state, never mind county.

Labor unions have and do serve a valid purpose; however, the teacher's
unions have gotten out of hand.

The school administrations have become lazy. There is no incentive to be
good stewards of the monies they are given.

The waste due to poor management runs rampant.

There are two extremes of the chain of command.

The shortest is the Catholic church. (The Pope to the Bishop to the
Priest)

The longest is the army. It is a long chain of command from the president
to a buck private.

Our schools need to be somewhere in between, probably closer to the
Catholic church than the army, IMHO.

To summarize, they is plenty of blame to go around.

The schools, the teachers, and the parents are all at fault.

When and if the parents are willing to assume some responsibility and thus
be able to demand a better product, they will get it.

Till then, good luck.

Lew


We are mostly on the same page here Lew. Many changes need to take place.
I blame the parents for letting it go this far. After that no one is
innocent.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

I'm sure that it won't surprise you to hear that the situation isn't
limited to Texas. Texas and California probably have the greatest
number; but it's become an issue everywhere - and I think more people
will be affected than you'd guess.

No, not suprised, 90 years ago it was the Europeans and more of a notheren
exposure. The propblem does seem to be more concentrated in the souther
border states.


Interestingly, the illegals up here seem eager to participate; and the
general attitude toward them is anything but hostile. It may be that
the climate does some kind of sorting - or it may just be some kind of
(agri)cultural affinity.

Maybe it is a far from home thing. ;~) The illegals here are more
concentrated and many are into drug trafficing. They want to remain unseen.
In more isolated cases they probably mix better.
When they allow their kids to skip school and parade holding the American
flag up side down and raising the Mexican flag with the Viva Mexico chant
that they tend to get on every ones nerves. Anyway, they could at least
contrubute to their own welfare.


|| Thus far, all that's been presented has been supposition/opinion
|| (for both pro and con) - including the notion that missing a
|| parent-teacher conference defines parental irresponsibility to an
|| extent worthy of criminal prosecution, the notion that a $500 fine
|| is reasonable and just, the notion that levying such a fine will
|| solve the problem, and the notion that this particular solution
|| won't invoke the law of unintended consequences.
|
| So what would you consider a fair penalty that would get the
| parrents attention and his active participation in the social up
| bringing of his child? I would be interested in hearing a better
| one.

I took a shot at this further downthread; but don't know whether my
suggestion would be an improvement or not. Some demographic/economic
info would certainly make thoughtful discussion much easier - and it
sounds as if there's a lot more heat than light being radiated.

| I think that if the parents would have not ignored the cry's it
| would not have gotten this far in the first place.

Agreed. Since you raised the issue of illegal aliens (I'm assuming
Mexican), I've been wondering if lack of proficiency in English and/or
fear of being deported might not be significant factors...

I suspect that those factors are a big problem. I bet however if they
showed up at the school there would be no problem with translations since
Spanish a almost an offical language in Texas.


| How about impose the $500 fine but it can be paid out over 12
| months and all of the money goes directly back toward that childs
| education and supervision that he needs. Or the parent pays the
| fine and gets the money back after his child's behavior and grades
| has become acceptable.

If you're determined to get that $500 fine, how about payback when the
youngster graduates from high school - or payback with interest in the
form of tuition vouchers if the youngster has been admitted to a
college degree program? No high school graduation, no payback at all.
This approach might constructively address several problems at one
time.

That sounds stronger than my thoughts but that would seem reasonable to me
also.



| I am totally up for suggestions.
| The real shame is that it has had to come this far to get the
| parents attention.

I agreee - but it's important to not let pent-up frustration lead us
to produce problems worse than the one we're trying to solve.






The question was rhetorical. FYI, this parent made a point of getting
together with a group of his kids' teachers for coffee every Friday
after school. Poor kids couldn't do anything their dad didn't hear
about. :-)

Good for you Morris. My hat is off to you.

On Feb 6, 6:42 pm, "
wrote:
Man, there is some really weird opinons here. So much vitriol... and
you can really smell the differevces in people and their respective
generations, and for those playing the rec.woodworking home version
for some time, it has to be fascinating to see the personalities
reveal themselves. It sure has been for me.

I read the rest of your post with great interest.

I have read all of the entries in here, also with great interest.

I saw a few fan a few flames, I saw a few with fire extiguishers, a
few from the left, a few from the right.... and of course a few ****-
disturbers who have nothing to add, so they decide to stir ****
instead; business as usual.
Yet, amongst the noise, a message seeped out that we all care for our
kids.
I have a niece, who taught inner-city in Witchita KS. Grade 5.
My niece is tough. Smart and tough. She would slam her fist on
somebody's kitchen table and demanded to know why Johnny/Suzy was so
tired in the morning. She took the parents head-on. One by one, slowly
things turned around...and why? Because somebody finally gave a ****.
None of the parents ever had to deal with a teacher who cared.
When the 5's went to grade 6, some came to talk to the new 5's and
were told not to **** with Ms P.
She has told me a few stories which just blew me away. If a parent
couldn't make it to a meeting, my niece would call and make an
appointment to come see them...many of them suddenly found the time
and way to make it to school to talk to the teacher.

Parents and teachers need to show a united front. Neither should have
to wait for the other to make the first move. I have walked into my
kid's teacher's coffee room un- announced. Most of the time with a
bull**** excuse, but ALL pf the time to show the flag.

It must be hell to teach a kid, knowing his/her parents don't give a
****.

Deadbeat parents will always be deadbeat parents. Legislation is NOT
going to solve that problem any more than jail-terms keeps crack off
the street. Ain't gonna happen.

All of this **** starts at home.

r---- who has managed to stay out of this thread. (It is all done
now, right?)

So, how much of a fine are we going to have for OT threads in the ng?

--
No dumb questions, just dumb answers.

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

J. Clarke wrote:
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.

If I make am appointment with either my dentist or my doctor and I break
the appointment and I fail to call to cancel the appointment I am
charged for the office call anyway. To me, this seems fair. I have
wasted his time and time is money. I have had the problem, pre-cell
phone, when a problem on the freeway or something similar caused me to
be too late to make the appointment and after explaining the situation,
they waived the fee. Also fair. As a teacher, I believe that my time is
as important as my dentist's or my doctor's time. The parent should
either call or not make the appointment. As for the parent being
"ordered to attend a meeting," I know of no state where a teacher can
make such a demand. If you know of one, please share it with me.

Glen

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"George" wrote:

Yes, many of our children are eligible for free or reduced breakfasts
and lunches. We also receive additional State/Federal funds for part
time in-classroom support over other schools in our district among
other
things.

Is this fair that one school receives additional State and Federal
support?

Is any scheme for income redistribution "fair?" It's the law. That'll
have
to do for those of us who respect the principle of rule by law, if not
the
individual law.

Well, George, how can you have equitable education for all if you don't
redistribute? I know, let's fund all schools up to the amount the lowest
taxbase neighborhood generates and eliminate all fundraisers - tadaah!

First, you try to get people like yourself to realize that while you can
teach a subject, the education comes from within. It's shouldn't be a
knowledge cafeteria out there either, ought to get some standard of cultural
continuation and comparability through use of the materials. My generation
all knows Dick and Jane, but the only current common culture comes from
sitcoms. Standardization.

Makes the _opportunity_ equal across the board. Which is the only thing we
should be concerned with. Doesn't take fancy buildings, small classes, high
technology, or any of the current educational Shibboleths, only a
willingness to learn.

Why is it always money? It's no substitute for effort, anywhere.

On Feb 6, 4:40?pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

| What we _do_ know as FACT: The current system, which does nothing
| to hold an irresponsible parent accountable, is not working.

Are you saying that the system _will_ be working after enacting this
piece of legislation?

--

I'd say it won't make a blind bit of difference to anyone or anything
except the parent who is fined. Cost of collection is likely to exceed
revenue, for one thing.

We're arguing about this as if all the school systems not using it are
failing (or vice versa); I have to sit back and wonder just how big a
problem broken appointments truly is. How many parents actually make
appointments and then don't keep them, on a state-by-state basis? In
other words, how many are extremely rude?

It strikes me, and this may be totally wrongheaded, that the problem
exists mainly in inner city schools, with some slop-over into other
urban schools, some suburban and a few rural. I've heard complaints
here about parents not showing up for parent-teachers days.

In other words, how big a problem are they trying to cure with
draconian measures that seem likely to be illegal or unconstituional
to start, and to engender irritation otherwise.

Someone commented that it would be nice to get the druggies' and
topers' attention and make them responsible parents. That is
particularly laughable in view of the general failure of almost all
behavior modification programs for such behavior. Adding one more
censure and fine is a ludicrous step, and one that's probably not even
noticeable to the parent floating away--is that what happens?--on a
crack cloud, or submerging in a wine fog.

But we come back to the problem's size. How big is it? This time
around, I'd think size really matters, IF the law turns out to be
Constitutional.

"Larry" wrote in message
So, how much of a fine are we going to have for OT threads in the ng?

The cabal will indeed fine complainers if their 'Next' key is in working
order.

.... while there is no cabal, they have ways of knowing.

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

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:39:35 GMT, Glen
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
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.

If I make am appointment with either my dentist or my doctor and I break
the appointment and I fail to call to cancel the appointment I am
charged for the office call anyway. To me, this seems fair.

That's certainly fair. However teachers don't normally charge for the
call. In fact I doubt that they are even allowed to. What you are
proposing is akin to the dentist actually fixing your teeth for free
and only charging if you fail to show up.

I have
wasted his time and time is money. I have had the problem, pre-cell
phone, when a problem on the freeway or something similar caused me to
be too late to make the appointment and after explaining the situation,
they waived the fee. Also fair. As a teacher, I believe that my time is
as important as my dentist's or my doctor's time.

That may be the case, but you as a teacher also make your living off
the government, not off of professional fees charged to the individual
parent, who normally pays you nothing except indirectly via taxes.

As for your time being as "important" as your dentist's or doctor's
time, how well did that one work last time you went for a raise?

The parent should
either call or not make the appointment. As for the parent being
"ordered to attend a meeting," I know of no state where a teacher can
make such a demand. If you know of one, please share it with me.

So the meeting is not mandatory but you want to criminalize
nonattendance anyway?

If you as a teacher don't understand the difference between a fee for
professional services and a government-imposed fine then you are _not_
making the teaching profession look good.

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


--

I'd say it won't make a blind bit of difference to anyone or anything
except the parent who is fined. Cost of collection is likely to exceed
revenue, for one thing.

It may bery well not make a diufference. I suspect that it will work on
those that are part time participators more so than those that simply are
not going to participate. If ther were no penalty many would disobey the
speed limit.


We're arguing about this as if all the school systems not using it are
failing (or vice versa); I have to sit back and wonder just how big a
problem broken appointments truly is. How many parents actually make
appointments and then don't keep them, on a state-by-state basis? In
other words, how many are extremely rude?

I am sure that a large percentage are doing just fine. The HS that my son
attended was by invetation only or if your borthers and sisters attended.
the qualifier was simply to have made passing grades 2 years prior to
attending and that your conduct grade be at least satisfoactory for those
years. The school did very well on state testing the drop out rate was
extrememy low. The community was mostly lower income.



It strikes me, and this may be totally wrongheaded, that the problem
exists mainly in inner city schools, with some slop-over into other
urban schools, some suburban and a few rural. I've heard complaints
here about parents not showing up for parent-teachers days.

I think it focused on a small town close to Houston in Brazoria county IIRC.


In other words, how big a problem are they trying to cure with
draconian measures that seem likely to be illegal or unconstituional
to start, and to engender irritation otherwise.

In some areas I'm sure it is a big problem but to single out a few problem
schools tends to rub some people the wrong way.


Someone commented that it would be nice to get the druggies' and
topers' attention and make them responsible parents. That is
particularly laughable in view of the general failure of almost all
behavior modification programs for such behavior. Adding one more
censure and fine is a ludicrous step, and one that's probably not even
noticeable to the parent floating away--is that what happens?--on a
crack cloud, or submerging in a wine fog.

I mentioned that and was hoping to get a laugh as the person I was
responding to was using the same extreme examples of why some would not be
able to attend the meeting. You and a few others "got it". It certainly
was a far fetched example as were the ones like the single mother of 8
working 2.5 jobs. Possible but very un likely.



But we come back to the problem's size. How big is it? This time
around, I'd think size really matters, IF the law turns out to be
Constitutional.

In the community that it is being consider in, pretty large. The simple
solution is to simply get or stay involved in your child's education and
behavior. Don't let it get that far if a problem is beginning to show. If
you live in an area that most parents are actually tax paying US citizens
and speak English the problem may not be so much. If you have nothing to
hide you typically have fewer reasons to not attend your child's meetings.

"Glen" wrote in message
link.net...

If I make am appointment with either my dentist or my doctor and I break
the appointment and I fail to call to cancel the appointment I am charged
for the office call anyway. To me, this seems fair.

Sure it is.

I have
wasted his time and time is money. I have had the problem, pre-cell phone,
when a problem on the freeway or something similar caused me to be too
late to make the appointment and after explaining the situation, they
waived the fee. Also fair.

That would be the reasonable excuse and reault.

As a teacher, I believe that my time is
as important as my dentist's or my doctor's time. The parent should
either call or not make the appointment.

Tenatively the parent will have the choice of 3 dates to attend the meeting
if his child id having prpblems that require parental involvement.



As for the parent being
"ordered to attend a meeting," I know of no state where a teacher can make
such a demand. If you know of one, please share it with me.


It is being proposed in Texas.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:39:35 GMT, Glen

If I make am appointment with either my dentist or my doctor and I break
the appointment and I fail to call to cancel the appointment I am
charged for the office call anyway. To me, this seems fair.

That's certainly fair. However teachers don't normally charge for the
call.

No they don't, God Bless them. But they should charge when they have stayed
after hours strictly for you and your childs benefit.


In fact I doubt that they are even allowed to. What you are
proposing is akin to the dentist actually fixing your teeth for free
and only charging if you fail to show up.


Are are you not thinking again of just trying to be funny?



I have
wasted his time and time is money. I have had the problem, pre-cell
phone, when a problem on the freeway or something similar caused me to
be too late to make the appointment and after explaining the situation,
they waived the fee. Also fair. As a teacher, I believe that my time is
as important as my dentist's or my doctor's time.

That may be the case, but you as a teacher also make your living off
the government, not off of professional fees charged to the individual
parent, who normally pays you nothing except indirectly via taxes.

So you are unaware that many teachers have second jobs and staying after
school to talk to you about your child keeps them from going to that job.
And, if you think the teacher is going to get that $500 fine paid to him or
her you really are kinda slow and especially if you think any one is going
to believe that.


As for your time being as "important" as your dentist's or doctor's
time, how well did that one work last time you went for a raise?

It has always worked for me. If I feel that I don't deserve one I certainly
will not ask for one. How dumb would that be?



The parent should
either call or not make the appointment. As for the parent being
"ordered to attend a meeting," I know of no state where a teacher can
make such a demand. If you know of one, please share it with me.

So the meeting is not mandatory but you want to criminalize
nonattendance anyway?

OK, the fine is for a couple of problem instances, not for a single screw up
by the parent.
So that you can grasp the concempt. If you pay federal taxes and have to
pay an additional amount at the end of the year you have to file and pay by
mid April. You can pay on most any day before that date but if you decide
not to pay by that date you need to file an extension or you could be fined
and additional amount.


If you as a teacher don't understand the difference between a fee for
professional services and a government-imposed fine then you are _not_
making the teaching profession look good.

I beg to differ. Hell, your comments made the teaching profession look
good.

J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:12:16 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

Ask them to explain it to you slowly. The minimum requirements lead to
two bachelors or a masters.

Read the regulations. The requirement is "either a master's degree or
at least 30 semester hours of graduate credit".

The "+30" is manifested in her case and many other SCSU education
department graduates by a second bachelors. G

My wife left school one December with two bachelors degrees, one in
Elementary Ed, the other in Spanish. She was hired the next day as a
full-time public school teacher, with _zero_ "graduate credits".

She got her master's in Science Education 4 years later. The program
she did her master's degree in didn't award progressive individual
credits, but was a full time weekend / summer all or nothing program.
She actually never had any graduate credits until she got them all at
once with he degree. If she didn't finish the program she would have
received zero credit.


I don't teach pigs to sing, and I'm not interested in having minor
details picked to death, so I'm really not interested in playing.

In other words when presented with the regulations rather than read
them and find out what they say, and show me that I'm wrong, you'll
bluster and call me names. That says that you aren't really sure of
your ground and are more interested in "winning" than in determining
the truth.

No, but I know exactly what I paid for at SCSU and am not interested in
splitting nits.

Leon wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote in message

I tried for years to effect some positive changes in
the public school system, but the teachers' union is so entrenched that it
is almost impossible. Just one example out of many: I have a son, who is
actually quite intelligent, who flunked KINDERGARTEN.


With all due respect, you should have been on the spot long before he
flunked that grade to remidy the situation.

Kind of hard to do when the school teacher tells you things are going OK
until the final grade comes out, proving the teacher had been lying all
along.


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

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


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


I think nothing anybody will do will lead to 100% parental participation.
But I also think parental involvement would go up significantly in a
system where a parent actually has some meaningful control over what
happens regarding the student's education, which is something the public
school teachers' unions do not want to see happen.

Leon wrote:

The fact that the parent did not show up for the meeting that he scheduled
SHOULD be reason enough for the fine.

How about a reciprocal law, that if the parent makes an appointment for,
say, 4:00 and the teacher keeps the parent waiting until 4:30, the
teacher has to pay the parent $500?

How about extending the law to doctors who keep their patients waiting,
drivers license and vehicle registration lines, etc., where ANY
professional or beaurocrat who keeps you waiting a half hour or more has
to pay you $500?

I'd bet the teacher unions would be screaming bloody murder over a
proposal that put the shoe on the other foot.



do you understand that the cost is not a direct one???? Do you think
prisons run for free? Who do you think it is that pays for welfare?

Can you prove a cause-and-effect relationship between any parent's
failing to cancel a meeting with a teacher and his child turning to a
life of crime or living on the government dole? NO? I thought not.

Glen wrote:

If I make am appointment with either my dentist or my doctor and I break
the appointment and I fail to call to cancel the appointment I am
charged for the office call anyway. To me, this seems fair. I have
wasted his time and time is money. I have had the problem, pre-cell
phone, when a problem on the freeway or something similar caused me to
be too late to make the appointment and after explaining the situation,
they waived the fee. Also fair. As a teacher, I believe that my time is
as important as my dentist's or my doctor's time. The parent should
either call or not make the appointment. As for the parent being
"ordered to attend a meeting," I know of no state where a teacher can
make such a demand. If you know of one, please share it with me.

If you make an appointment with your dentist and doctor and he keeps you
cooling your heels in the reception area for a half hour, then spends
two hours giving you another half-hour's worth of attention, does he pay
you back for the two hours of your lost time? NO? I thought not.

If you as a teacher made an appointment with a parent, and he appeared
on time but had to leave without seeing you because you kept him waiting
for a half hour and he had another commitment on his time, should you
pay HIM $500 for missing the appointment? Would YOU willingly accept
such an arrangement?

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:36:06 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:12:16 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

Ask them to explain it to you slowly. The minimum requirements lead to
two bachelors or a masters.

Read the regulations. The requirement is "either a master's degree or
at least 30 semester hours of graduate credit".

The "+30" is manifested in her case and many other SCSU education
department graduates by a second bachelors. G

That's a policy of the college, not a requirement of the regulations.

My wife left school one December with two bachelors degrees, one in
Elementary Ed, the other in Spanish. She was hired the next day as a
full-time public school teacher, with _zero_ "graduate credits".

She got her master's in Science Education 4 years later. The program
she did her master's degree in didn't award progressive individual
credits, but was a full time weekend / summer all or nothing program.
She actually never had any graduate credits until she got them all at
once with he degree. If she didn't finish the program she would have
received zero credit.

Would you read the bleeding regs? If she got her master's 4 years
later that means that she got her two degrees and zero graduate
credits before some time in 2003, when the regulation changed, before
that it was just 30 hours of courseword, it wasn't until late in 2003
that the requirement was changed to 30 hours of graduate credit.

As for her enrolling in an "all or nothing program" that was her
choice, again not a requirement of the regulations. One is not
required to enroll in a "program" to get 30 hours of graduate
credit--every grad school I've ever encountered allows one to take
individual courses.

You seem to be confusing choices that individuals have made with
actions required by regulation.

I don't teach pigs to sing, and I'm not interested in having minor
details picked to death, so I'm really not interested in playing.

In other words when presented with the regulations rather than read
them and find out what they say, and show me that I'm wrong, you'll
bluster and call me names. That says that you aren't really sure of
your ground and are more interested in "winning" than in determining
the truth.

No, but I know exactly what I paid for at SCSU and am not interested in
splitting nits.

You may know what you paid for but if you don' know the regs you don't
know if you got a good deal or were robbed.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..



do you understand that the cost is not a direct one???? Do you think
prisons run for free? Who do you think it is that pays for welfare?

Can you prove a cause-and-effect relationship between any parent's failing
to cancel a meeting with a teacher and his child turning to a life of
crime or living on the government dole? NO? I thought not.



Are you really an ostrich? ;~) I thought so.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news
Leon wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
I tried for years to effect some positive changes in the public school
system, but the teachers' union is so entrenched that it is almost
impossible. Just one example out of many: I have a son, who is
actually quite intelligent, who flunked KINDERGARTEN.


With all due respect, you should have been on the spot long before he
flunked that grade to remidy the situation.

Kind of hard to do when the school teacher tells you things are going OK
until the final grade comes out, proving the teacher had been lying all
along.

You saw none of your sons report cards, you saw none of your sons work, and
he suddenly failed.
What a shocker. You must be reeeeeely easy to fool.

On Feb 6, 4:56 pm, "Leon" wrote:

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

Uh oh... lemme guess. Is he at it again? Seems that is all he lives
for.
I see the name show up on the list. I sort it by 'reply' and I see
this ol' familiar see-saw.
I can't believe my eyes.

What an asshole.

r (things warming up a little down there?)

On Feb 6, 4:51�pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Feb 6, 10:37?am, Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.

Oh, bull****, Leon -- you advocate the Nanny State every chance you get.
Your insistence on legislating the SawStop is a prime example.

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


Let's keep our attributions straight, Leon. That line above was from
Dave Miller, not me.


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

Uh, sure. Except that would knock off about 5%, and Bush is already
shaving things as close as possible, plus some, outside of military
expenditures.

Incidentally, what do you call "welfare"? SSI? Or VA disability
pensions?

Aid programs? Heating help for the elderly? Aid to Israel? Aid of any
kind for any European country (I'll buy this one right now).

Put some specifics to your generalities while you're getting those
attributions correct.

On Feb 6, 5:27�pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message

...

Swingman wrote:

Might be getting a bit emotional here - I haven't heard anyone
advocate in favor of doing nothing to solve the problem - only
opinions to the effect that Rep. Smith's proposed solution is a bit
heavy-handed. If holding that opinion makes one a coward, then put me
at the top of the list.

I think what makes it emotional is that this is a proposal that is in a
state that has problems that others may not have. *Some of us are darn tired
to educating illegal's children and them not participating physically or
economically. *Then there are the gangs and the parents that do not care.
True, no one has really in so many words advocated that doing nothing would
solve the problem. *The fact is, NO one has suggested anything at all as an
alternative. *They have simply slamed this proposal and 98% will not be
affected regardless of how it turns out in Texas.

snip

Oh, good grief. Problems "others may not have." The illegal alien
problem is spread across every state, with the possible exception--not
probable--of Alaska. It may be larger in Texas and SoCal and Arizona
and New Mexico...oh, wait. We are past the "other states" already.
Virginia has problems with it, NY has more problems with it, and on.

No, nothing guarantees that. *There are no guarantees in life except that if
we do not get involved in our childrens education and behavior it will
continue to get worse.

And that is the simple truth. Probably 90% of the problem with
American education today is lack of parental involvement, even to the
degree of making sure kids do their homework.

There are behavioral problems, even in rural areas in the Bible Belt
where you wouldn't expect a girl to get in-school (WTF is this?)
suspension for giving a guy a BJ in the high school hallway.

Do we blame that on the school? Parents? Church? Two out of three
ain't bad, and the school is not part of that of that equation.

Public schools HAVE to accept anyone within specific areas in specific
age ranges, at least until behavior becomes so bad they can be kicked
out. Private schools, and home schooling, get to cherry pick, taking
only the kids who are either interested in learning or who can be
motivated to learn without major problems. In the meantime, public
schools deal with the thugs, creeps and disabled and get dumped on
thousands of times daily for not "teaching our children enough" when
probably half the time, the complainer's kid has been urinating on the
books on the lower shelves in the library stacks.

Do public schools need to improve, on an overal basis throughout the
U.S.? You bet. Does splitting off money for other systems make it
easier for them to improve? Nope. Makes it easier for an already
established elite to go on about their business of further separating
themselves from reality.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

Makes it easier for an already established elite
to go on about their business of further separating
themselves from reality.

Well said!


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

On Feb 6, 8:11�pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

link.net...

Subject

It is a given that the public schools are a mess; however, the last place
to get ideas to fix them is from the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and
his cronies.

They have created enough problems.

Lew

And while I agree,

Do we,

A. * Do nothing?
B. *What do you propose?

I suggest sitting down and thinking of a solution that will work. What
that is, I don't know, but I do know an across the board fine for
missing a meeting is ridiculous.

Somewhere, somehow, parents need to be educated about children's
behavior, and how it affects them and their classmates, as well as
their later chances in the world.

How you do that with the severely uneducated, I don't know, unless
they already have a drive to have their children become educated to
escape their morass. Fining people with no sense of society for being
being rude is not going to work.