On Feb 6, 8:33�pm, Lew Hodgett wrote:
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

Today, though, if my parents or yours were alive and using the same
techniques for child raising, they'd be in danger of spending some
serious jail time, and losing the kids. Somehow, we're better off
because of that, eh?

Your last line truly sums it up. Parents need to assume some
responsibility, but, because this is a free country, it's damned near
impossible to force them to do so. Too, parents in name and parents in
fact are two different things. What can you expect from the guy who
has impregnated half a dozen women, but keeps movin' on? Or the woman
who has six kids by six fathers--she thinks, though she can't remember
the names of all the guys she's slept with?

So, basically, the most important factor in the equation is simple
parental involvement, and that, at least in some cases, appears to be
impossible.

Can we always insist on hiring only inspired teachers? It would be
nice, wouldn't it? I met three in my school career, from kindergarten
through college. But simple competence should be enough, and,
obviously, it isn't. An inspired teacher can even get a horny, car and
motorcycle crazy lunk like I was to learn. There simply are not enough
of them to go around, nor will there ever be.

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

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.


Sorry Charlie, I did respond to your name but have filtered "Dave" ;~) out.
He probably used your name to respond so that I would see him.



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?

SSI for specific reasons answered below.


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).

All of the above. In Texas the electic utilities provide help for the
needy. Add to that the Single unwed breeding machines that get more money
for each child thaty have. People on unemployment that can actually do some
kind of work and choose not to because they don't have to.

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

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.

I have to think that this has been done time and again. The problem is,
NEVER, are you going to please every one and you will always get the people
that have excuses using others as an example. Valid excuses in some cases
but lets not assume that the unfortunate may not be on board also. Let
those that may be affected adversly voice their OWN openions on the matter.
Knocking the proposal because of why it might affect others is a cop out.
The under privilaged have the right to voice opposition if they feel the
need.

You think the fine is ridiculous, I don't. That is a wash.

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.

Yeah, this proposal would address that. Not as perfectly as you might think
but it would make a difference in many cases. If you have a better way,
suggest one, perhaps it will be considered unless the naysayers shoot it
down.


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.

Yeah, um I don't think that the proposal says anything about being rude. I
mentioned calling to cancel an appointment a common courtesy because it is
common courtesy. Calling to cancel just so happens to be a requirement to
avoid an possible fine. So if you are a person that practices "common
courtesy" making a phone call to cancel will not be a big deal for you.

Provisions are made for those with valid excuses for missing the meeting. I
am sure a broken down car or stuck in traffic will be a valid excuse even if
the call is not made before the meeting. Not calling to go to the hair
dresser is not. And true, some people will lie and use a valid sounding
excuse but a grand mother can only die a couple of times before things start
looking fishy.

If we wait for a way to make parents come to the meetings that every one
agrees with it will not happen untill the second comming.

Enough already. 200+ posts. Back to woodworking.

"James Silcott" wrote in message
...
Enough already. 200+ posts. Back to woodworking.


So post a wood working topic.

in 1344560 20070208 120859 "Charlie Self" wrote:

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).

What aid to European countries would this be?

"James Silcott" wrote in message

Enough already. 200+ posts. Back to woodworking.

Careful now ...

There is no cabal ... but they will definitely revoke that moderator wannabe
license if you keep demonstrating that you do not understand the meaning of
"OT".


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

On Feb 8, 9:20 am, "Swingman" wrote:
"James Silcott" wrote in message
Enough already. 200+ posts. Back to woodworking.

Careful now ...

There is no cabal ... but they will definitely revoke that moderator wannabe
license if you keep demonstrating that you do not understand the meaning of
"OT".



*smirks*

I'd like to have an argument, please.

Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?

No, this is my first time.

I see. Well, were you thinking of taking a five minute argument or a
course?

Well, what's the cost?

It's £1 for a five minute argument, but it's £8 for a course of ten.

I think I'll take the five minutes and see how it progresses.

Very well. Now, Mr. Hayward isn't free at the moment, nor is Mr.
Baker.
Here we go, Mr. Maynard, Room 12.

Thank you.

WHAT DO YOU WANT?!

Well, I was told outside--

DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!

What?!

SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT!
YOUR TYPE REALLY MAKES ME PUKE, YOU PERVERT!

What are you doing?! I came in here for an argument!

Oh! I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

Oh, that explains it.

Yes, you want Room 12A. Next door.

Thank you.

Not at all. (Door shuts) Stupid git.

Is the right room for an argument?

I've told you once.

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did.

When?

Just now.

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did.

No, you didn't.

Excuse me. Is the five minute argument or the half hour?

Oh, just the five minute.

Thank you. Anyway, I did tell you.

No, you most certainly did not.

Let's get one thing straight: I most definitely told you.

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did.

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did.

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did.

This isn't an argument!

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. It's just contradiction.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. You just contradicted me.

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.

No, no, no.

You did just then.

That's ludicrous.

Oh, this is futile.

No, it isn't.

I came in here for a good argument.

No, you didn't. You came in here for an argument.

Well, argument isn't the same as contradiction.

Can be.

No, it can't.
An argument is a collective series of statements intended to establish
a proposition.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It isn't just contradiction.

Look, if I argue with you. I must take a contrary position.

But it isn't just saying No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. Argument's an intellectual protest,
contradiction just the automatic opposite of any statement the other
person makes.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Not at all.

Now, look-- (Bell dings)

Good morning.

What?

That's it. Good morning.

I was just getting interested.

I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.

That was not five minutes.

I'm afraid it was.

Oh, no, it wasn't. (Argument professional looks around the room)

I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

What?

If you want to go on arguing you'll have to pay for another five
minutes.

But that was not five minutes, just now. (Professional whistles) Oh,
come on.

If you want to continue arguing, you must pay for another five
minutes.

Oh, fine. Here.

Thank you.

Well?

Well what?

That was not five minutes, just then.

I told you, you have to pay.

I just paid.

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did.

No, you didn't.

I don't want to argue about that.

Well, you didn't pay.

Ah, but if I didn't pay, why are you arguing? Aha! Got you.

No, you haven't.

Yes, I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.

Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

Oh, I've had enough of this.

No, you haven't.

Oh, shut up!

Leon wrote:
"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.


An ad hominem attack is a sign the poster has run out of rational things
to say.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...


An ad hominem attack is a sign the poster has run out of rational things
to say.

YOU are A B S O L U T E L Y correct. Rational comments have meant nothing
to you so far.

Now that was funny.

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


An ad hominem attack is a sign the poster has run out of rational things
to say.


YOU are A B S O L U T E L Y correct. Rational comments have meant nothing
to you so far.


In other words, people who disagree with you are not rational.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..


In other words, people who disagree with you are not rational.

You see, I would have never said that. But straight out of your mouth comes
that comment.
My comments toward you are more from my observation that you seem to have
you head buried in the sand.

You often take things I say out of context and then twist them in to some
absurd conclusion, just like now.

Leon wrote:
Now that was funny.

No it wasn't.

;-)

--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000712-1, 02/08/2007
Tested on: 2/9/2007 1:46:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"Bill in Detroit" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
Now that was funny.

No it wasn't.

;-)



LOL.. ;~)

Just Wondering wrote:
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.

Unfortunately, no. But I do believe if my wait is not due to an
emergency situation, he should.
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?

I would jump at the chance! Thirty two years I have been teaching, and
I have NEVER missed a scheduled parent conference, but I have been stood
up countless times. Every time the conference was scheduled by the parent.

Glen

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
Myxylplyk wrote:

You really think that good parenting, like morals, can be legislated?
Wake
up.

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

He has a point, Leon. Sounds to me like that legislator's good intentions
went a bit awry.


He is assuming a PTA or PTO meeting for a crowd. The proposal is more for
one on one.

No, I was considering only the one on one typemeeting. Parents that cannot
be bothered would never go to a group meeting.
Legislating social morals has and will never work.
Showing up to a one one one with the teacher get them out of the fine.
Now find a way to legislate their active participation in those meetings and
you're all set.
Oh, except that laws with fines usually require options for jail time for
those unwilling to pay.

Maybe Texas should just skip the process and assume that all parents that
are no-shows are just those chronicly bad parents and throw them right into
jail. Then Texas can assume the wardship of the children and "bring them up
propperly".
We all have seen how well state run institutions function.

Happily, I don't live in Texas. I would be one of those mouthy people
calling for this dim witted congressman's impeachment.

Myx

"Myxylplyk" wrote in message

No, I was considering only the one on one typemeeting. Parents that
cannot
be bothered would never go to a group meeting.

For that we shoot them, here in Texas.

Legislating social morals has and will never work.

That doesn't mean we don't constantly try. Prostitution, a strictly moral
issue, is 'legislatated' in most places.

Now find a way to legislate their active participation in those meetings
and
you're all set.

Hire a couple of prostitutes to attend.

Oh, except that laws with fines usually require options for jail time for
those unwilling to pay.

Parking fines?

Maybe Texas should just skip the process and assume that all parents that
are no-shows are just those chronicly bad parents and throw them right
into
jail. Then Texas can assume the wardship of the children and "bring them
up
propperly".
We all have seen how well state run institutions function.

Yep ... schools fall/fail right in there.

Happily, I don't live in Texas. .

We are happy, too.

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

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:52:31 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

Oh, except that laws with fines usually require options for jail time for
those unwilling to pay.

Parking fines?

Scofflaws? (Only know of one who went to jail but he had over a
thousand unpaid tickets and an attitude)

Mark
http://home.mchsi.com/~xphome/

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
snip
That doesn't mean we don't constantly try. Prostitution, a strictly moral
issue, is 'legislatated' in most places.

Yes. Thanks for illustrating my point. Works equally "well" everywhere, as
in doesn't work at all.


snip

Oh, except that laws with fines usually require options for jail time for
those unwilling to pay.

Parking fines?

Get enough parking fines and someone in the DA's office get notified. Soon
after that the bench warrant with your name on it ... all for parking
tickets. (BYW - a "ticket" is an appearance ticket. A notice that you must
appear in court or plead guildty. This usually results in only a fine, but
it's not directly equivalent.


Maybe Texas should just skip the process and assume that all parents that
are no-shows are just those chronicly bad parents and throw them right
into
jail. Then Texas can assume the wardship of the children and "bring them
up
propperly".
We all have seen how well state run institutions function.

Yep ... schools fall/fail right in there.

If your schools were really state run institutions, we wouldn't be having
this discussion. The state directs a curiculum that must be followed.
(Unless your school doesnt receive state aide)


Happily, I don't live in Texas. .

We are happy, too.
Amen!
I will be happy when Shrub finally finished fencing in Texas for Walt
Disney! :P



Myx

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:56:57 -0500, "Myxylplyk"
wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message
...
snip
That doesn't mean we don't constantly try. Prostitution, a strictly moral
issue, is 'legislatated' in most places.

Yes. Thanks for illustrating my point. Works equally "well" everywhere, as
in doesn't work at all.


snip

Oh, except that laws with fines usually require options for jail time for
those unwilling to pay.

Parking fines?

Get enough parking fines and someone in the DA's office get notified. Soon
after that the bench warrant with your name on it ... all for parking
tickets. (BYW - a "ticket" is an appearance ticket. A notice that you must
appear in court or plead guildty. This usually results in only a fine, but
it's not directly equivalent.


Maybe Texas should just skip the process and assume that all parents that
are no-shows are just those chronicly bad parents and throw them right
into
jail. Then Texas can assume the wardship of the children and "bring them
up
propperly".
We all have seen how well state run institutions function.

Yep ... schools fall/fail right in there.

If your schools were really state run institutions, we wouldn't be having
this discussion. The state directs a curiculum that must be followed.
(Unless your school doesnt receive state aide)

I don't know where you are but in the US most of the the schools _are_
run by the state in the sense that "state"="government" rather than in
the sense that "state"="one of 50 specific political subunits". There
are schools that are not run by the government, in some cases those
are run by churches and in others are private profit-making
businesses, but for the most part they are run by the government.

Happily, I don't live in Texas. .

We are happy, too.
Amen!
I will be happy when Shrub finally finished fencing in Texas for Walt
Disney! :P



Myx

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:52:31 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Myxylplyk" wrote in message

Now find a way to legislate their active participation in those meetings
and
you're all set.

Hire a couple of prostitutes to attend.


You mean that CongressCritters don't already attend?

I'm shocked, shocked, that this occurs in Casa...



Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

snip

I don't know where you are but in the US most of the the schools _are_
run by the state in the sense that "state"="government" rather than in
the sense that "state"="one of 50 specific political subunits". There
are schools that are not run by the government, in some cases those
are run by churches and in others are private profit-making
businesses, but for the most part they are run by the government.


That's not exactly right.
Here, in NY, the local "government", i.e. town/city officials, effective
handle only the school tax collection.
The school superintendant is NOT an officer within the local/city
government. That position
is controlled by a locally elected school board. The board's only
connection to the State government
is they're responsible for meeting the educational requirement the NYState
Department of Education set.
The intended roll for the school board is as a educational overseer, with
budgeting responsibilities.
The members get elected based on their abilities to meet the local
educational requirements within the state's guidelines.
The guidelines get more and more specific as the amount of state aide your
school system increases.
In current reality, school boards do little actual planning beyond how to
"maximize their state aide dollars".
Seems their primary budgeting role is now finding a way to get the next
levels "bigger pocket" to pay for local projects.

At no point can the local govenments be put into a position of choosing to
"raid" the school tax funds to pay the local street lighting bill. There is
no direct connection between town/city/county government and the school
board, beyond some sccountability for spending the school tax dollars
properly. (No home expansions for the school board member allowed. )

Private/church schools that provide the main stream education of children
are also held to the NY State Department of Education's curiculum guidlines
too. They get the lighter version due to their receipt of little to no
state aide.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:42:43 -0500, "Myxylplyk"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .

snip

I don't know where you are but in the US most of the the schools _are_
run by the state in the sense that "state"="government" rather than in
the sense that "state"="one of 50 specific political subunits". There
are schools that are not run by the government, in some cases those
are run by churches and in others are private profit-making
businesses, but for the most part they are run by the government.


That's not exactly right.
Here, in NY, the local "government", i.e. town/city officials, effective
handle only the school tax collection.
The school superintendant is NOT an officer within the local/city
government. That position
is controlled by a locally elected school board. The board's only
connection to the State government
is they're responsible for meeting the educational requirement the NYState
Department of Education set.

What part of "government=state=government" are you having trouble
with? If they are run by the Federal government they are state
schools. If they are run by New York State they are state schools. If
they run by the county the are state schools. If they are run by the
city they are state schools. If they are run by the school district
they are state schools. It's all government, it's all the state.

If they're run by officials either elected by the populace or
appointed by some level of government then they are state schools.

The intended roll for the school board is as a educational overseer, with
budgeting responsibilities.

Which makes them not government how?

The members get elected based on their abilities to meet the local
educational requirements within the state's guidelines.

Which makes them not government how?

The guidelines get more and more specific as the amount of state aide your
school system increases.

Which makes them not government how?

In current reality, school boards do little actual planning beyond how to
"maximize their state aide dollars".

Which makes them not government how?

Seems their primary budgeting role is now finding a way to get the next
levels "bigger pocket" to pay for local projects.

Which makes them not government how?

At no point can the local govenments be put into a position of choosing to
"raid" the school tax funds to pay the local street lighting bill. There is
no direct connection between town/city/county government and the school
board, beyond some sccountability for spending the school tax dollars
properly. (No home expansions for the school board member allowed. )

Which makes them not government how?

Private/church schools that provide the main stream education of children
are also held to the NY State Department of Education's curiculum guidlines
too. They get the lighter version due to their receipt of little to no
state aide.

Which makes what difference?