Not another education thread

[Backroads]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38814295&nid=148

 

So Utah seems to be considering a law punishing parents if their child has so many truancies.

I'm still trying to put together my thoughts on the matter in regards to a specific yay or nay.

But my philosophy according to me.

I teach 2nd grade at a public charter school. Last week, the office handed us the letters for students who are past, at, or approaching the maximum tardy/absent limit, and it was over half my class. Some of these students were totally understandable in their situations of how things were that year where I wouldn't cast a thought of worry on their education well-being and general attendance. Others... well, they already have a lot going on besides. I have also had three students leave this year because their families decided that the position of transporting said students to our school (we have no transportation system) was not meshing with the family's schedule and other needs in comparison to other educational options. Sad to see a student go, but I get it and I also appreciate it: If you're selecting a charter school, you need to make sure you're willing and able to work with policy. I would apply this same philosophy to any other educational choice. You made this choice for your child and family, you must be willing to own up to it. In my charter school that has a lottery entrance system, don't hog a spot that you're not going to use.

In reading and hearing about the debate concerning the aforementioned bill, I get the parent choice thing and I agree: parents should be in charge of the education of their children and no the school should not be running these students' and families' lives. But parents also know, or have the ability to find out, the nature of what is required by a public school. Thus a choice remains if a parent chooses to use the public school to educate their offspring: accept the terms or seek to have them changed. If nothing is satisfactory, the parent should then select an alternative means of education.

If a parents says "I don't have to send my kid to school!", well, that's true, at least in my philosophy. But as a teacher that makes it incredibly hard for me to teach your child. When you choose to not send your kid to my classroom, you cannot later come to me and blame me for any educational failures concerning your child. You removed me from the equation.

I suppose I'm asking for knowledge and acceptance of what a parent is getting into as far as a school is concerned. Don't choose an educational system and plan on ignoring the responsibilities involved.

Now, I'm an advocate for educational choice. I plan to homeschool my girls circumstances allowing. I would love to see less focus on public school and perhaps just a nice gentleman (or lady for PC's sake) in a state office advocating for a child's need for an education just checking to make sure crazy parents aren't locking up their kids in closets denying them some source of education.

But a cafeteria plan attitude of people saying they want the convenience of the neighborhood school but don't want to abide by policies yet still want their kids magically educated? Bad plan.

As far as punishing parents: well, there is a big difference between the first grader whose parents are too lazy to take the kid to school and the high schooler who sluffs.

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, Backroads said:

. When you choose to not send your kid to my classroom, you cannot later come to me and blame me for any educational failures concerning your child. You removed me from the equation.

 

Well said.