Our state Representative, Wayne Smith, has introduced a bill that would make it a misdemeanor for a parent to schedule a teacher conference and not show up, or refuse to show up for a conference that a teacher requests. A first offense could result in a fine on conviction, and a second offense could result in jail time.” Thank you Barb Wooster for summing that up so eloquently...
It’s true, in the best interest of all Texans; one of our elected officials has found yet another way to punish the parent of a wayward student.
Kari Griffin, one of my favorite reporters for the Baytown Sun wrote: “Director of student services Al Richard said he would not comment on the possible effects of Smith’s bill, but he has observed the result of making parents legally responsible for their children’s absences.”
One of the oldest misguided statements I’ve heard repeatedly over the last twenty years goes something like this: “Well, if their kid would have been raised better, they wouldn’t have turned out so bad”. I can tell you first hand, that children tend to go their own way, some of it good and some of it bad, regardless of how you attempt to steer them. This is why almost everyone knows of a preacher’s kid or a cop’s child who has chosen the opposite path than the one lived out in front of them.
I pity the well-intentioned and hard-working teacher, who through parental complaint and legal restraints cannot adjust the student’s attitude with a few good whacks of a paddle. It did wonders for a student’s attitude back in the day before senseless lawsuits and progressive thinking banned corporal punishment.
We are now living in the day of “Zero Tolerance”, which on paper is a good idea, but in practice is about the stupidest philosophy to come down the pike in the last century. It removes all judgment calls and decision-making from the school staff and based on prearranged guidelines tries and convicts the student in such a way that no one has to shoulder the blame, thus, they cannot be sued. More times than not, the violation is placed on the parents…just like this new legislation intends to do.
Back in the 1960’s, when this country was in social upheaval, the likes of which we have never duplicated since, my generation thought most of what had happened in the past needed changing. We were right on some of it, but wrong on others and guess what? My generation is for the most part, the ones in charge now. Corporal punishment, or for a more modern translation, paddling (spanking) a child for their transgressions of school policy, is an example of how a child used to be held accountable for their actions.
“How barbaric”! Yes and let me add, effective. Young teenage boys, full of vim and vigor lived under the well justified fear they would get “pops” if they acted out. I received my share I’ll tell you openly and every time, it made a positive adjustment in my attitude. In fact, I lived in fear my parents would find out about the “pops” and I would be punished all over again.
I didn’t skip school very often either, because I knew the Truant Officer would come get me and I could end up in a reform school. Would my parents be fined? Nope, not a penny. Would little Berty learn his lesson? Yuppers, right along with all those other wayward kids living in a reform school of hardened truants.
I quote Kari Griffin again: “Goose Creek Superintendent Barbara Sultis said parents should be keenly involved with their child’s education. “Communication between school and home is essential to a student’s success in the classroom,” said Sultis.” Parents SHOULD be involved in their child’s education and “should” is the key word here.
The new bill, if passed, will once again remove the burden from the student and place it on the parent. Like the zero tolerance policy, it is well-intentioned, but wrongly directed. The student must answer for their own actions and passing the punishment off to the parent is not the solution. The message sent to the student is simple – they are not responsible for their own actions.
Forget fining the parent for a child’s actions or absences. If a child will not come to school, have a Truant officer pick them up and send them to a boot camp (today’s modern reform school). If they misbehave in school, send them to the Principles office and in front of witnesses and camera, apply the wooden force of correction to the seat of learning.
Return the tried and proven corporal punishment corrective method to the teacher and we will see an improvement in our student’s attitudes.
3 comments:
I agree this time, and I don't. When I read that this was on the table, I just shook my head; but on further thought, I am not sure it is such a bad idea. This act does not hold the parent responsible, but rather requires the parent to be aware of the difficulties the teacher is having. As a former teacher, (I'll never do that again) I can tell you that parents are usually not aware of the difficulties teachers have with their child. When asked for a conference, parents are inclined to be too busy. This will require parents to at least listen to the issues a teacher has with their child. I do agree that teachers and especially administrators should have more leeway with the corrective measures needed to control wayward students, but they must allow parents knowledge of planned discipline prior to execution. I have seen my own children as well as my brothers be wrongfully disciplined by an over-zealous teacher. While they do not have enough authority now, we certainly do not need teachers to have the total authority they had in the past. It seems it is always necessary to go to extremes before coming to a suitable middle-ground.
I was talking about this issue with some friends over the weekend, and they seemed to be of the same opinion as Seabird: "Maybe it will make those parents who AREN'T involved be more so, if they are required by law."
Two problems with this, as I see it. First, the parents who don't care enough to attend parent-teacher meetings won't care any MORE because they are required to attend. They'll just be ticked at the kids and the school system for a change, instead of just at the kids.
Second, when a rule like this becomes "law" it seems to take on a life of its own, usually with a "zero tolerance" approach to avoid discrimination or other claims of preferential treatment. When we were in school, the district had no tolerance for drug use, but they used common sense about it. Nowadays, the "zero tolerance" laws on drugs at school "require" administrators to deal out harsh punishments even for offenses like having asprin or Tylenol or cold medicine or -- for goodness' sake -- Pamprin for female high school students during "that time of the month." I could see a policy like the one Mr. Smith has proposed easily becoming a "zero tolerance" boulder rolling down the hill, with parents being penalized for not being able to make scheduled meetings even for sensible reasons. (Sick kid, work schedule problems, etc.)
As a teacher, I agree with much of what you have to say on the matter, though I am all for jailing (better yet, caning) parents who make an appointment with me (especially after well-after the end of the school day) and then don't show. But the other half of the bill -- effectively giving me the power to subpoena a parent -- strikes me as well beyond the realm of good public policy.
Post a Comment