TX repuke:Fine parents who skip school conferences (criminal charges, $500 fee)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/013107dntexparents.1f4b0c6.html

Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, said it is time for the state to crack down on Texans who are shirking their parental responsibilities by failing to meet with the teacher when their child is having academic or disciplinary problems.

Under the bill, parents who miss a scheduled conference with a teacher could be charged with a Class C misdemeanor and fined up to $500. Parents could avoid prosecution if they have a "reasonable excuse" for failing to show up. State education officials or school districts would probably be left to define what's reasonable but, for example, a medical emergency would probably suffice.

The bill, which is expected to be considered in the House Public Education Committee that Mr. Eissler leads, specifies that the parent has to receive written notice by certified mail, listing at least three proposed dates for the parent-teacher conference. A parent who ignores the notice or schedules a meeting but fails to attend would face charges – unless there was a valid reason for not showing up.

The measure also states that fines paid by parents would be used to either provide additional compensation for teachers in the district or to purchase school supplies other than textbooks.

who say 'if you take off work for this, you're fired?'

Family and Medical Leave Act says employers have to let employees off for conferences.

a certain number of employees (maybe 50?) - small businesses are (or at least were) exempt.

We have used this law many times to get parents to come to school.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_825/29CFR825.104.htm


An employer covered by FMLA is any person engaged in commerce or
in any industry or activity affecting commerce, who employs 50 or more
employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar
workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Employers covered
by FMLA also include any person acting, directly or indirectly, in the
interest of a covered employer to any of the employees of the employer,
any successor in interest of a covered employer, and any public agency.
Public agencies are covered employers without regard to the number of
employees employed. Public as well as private elementary and secondary
schools are also covered employers

That is the number our school district uses. We have a copy of the law in our office. And since today is parent teacher conference day, it is right by the phone.

or foster placement issues.


http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/benefits-leave/fmla.htm


FMLA applies to all public agencies, all public and private elementary and secondary schools, and companies with 50 or more employees. These employers must provide an eligible employee with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for any of the following reasons:

• for the birth and care of the newborn child of an employee;

• for placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care;

• to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or

• to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

Employees are eligible for leave if they have worked for their employer at least 12 months, at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles. Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours of service is determined according to FLSA principles for determining compensable hours or work.

We helped lobby for this law and our legal dept refers to it often.

We don't have that in Texas and it isn't attached to the actual FMLA.

Every year before parent teacher conferences, we get a memo from our legal dept reminding us to tell parents they can take off work under the FMLA.

And doesn't mean the employer will ever face consequences for it.

The Republicans damn near want to rape you with big government.

stupid Repugs!!!

able to schedule a time that works for them.

and we even do home visits in my district. I have also visited more than a few parents at work.

advance. I worked two jobs for most of my daughter's elementary education with very unforgiving bosses and still managed to make a 7:45 PM conference.

yet I never had a problem meeting with them. I thought it was pretty important. I also made my husband come.

I also have never understood any parent not wanting to meet the teachers who spent so much time with their children.

The days of the 1950's 9-5 schedule are long gone.

and then there's child care for the other kids too, for the single-parent families..

Many school districts are still operating like they did back in the days when every kid's Mom was a phone call away, and could fold her apron, and head for the school at the drop of a hat (and gloves).:P

When my kids were in 3rd, 4th & 8th grade, I worked 57 miles (one way), and my husband worked 61 miles (one way) in the other direction. A school nurse called me one day and told me to "come and pick Michael up".. he was sick. She called at 1PM.. I told her I could be there by 4, and she said "No you have to pick him up now, because school is "out" at 2:15".

I asked her if she had ever driven the Pomona freeway (the 60) in the afternoon? and told her it would take me that long to GET home.

Michael is my "drama-queen", and I knew he was not sick (well ..maybe sick of school), so I asked her what exactly she wanted me to do... She finally came around to the fact that he could sit in the nurse's office for an hour & half until school got out, & walk home with his younger brother, or the nurse could stay until I got there.

If they won't do it, the parents shouldn't be held liable and should then have an acceptable excuse for not showing up and avoid the fine. The employer can still be sued for not following the law.

in the medical field as Repukes who can afford to do so, hire doctors to write notes absolving them of their duty to raise their kids. Never mind, they would just pay the fine. Once again it would be the poor that can't affor to take time off or pay the fine that would suffer. Why don't they make it a fine based on income and assets?

in the afternoon and even in the evening. I don't think this is wholly unreasonable.

I don't. And I am as liberal and progressive as they come. Let's be realistic, laws holding parents responsible for kids behaviors are not always just and to me a law that is not just is a bad law. My child happens to be pretty darn responsible but I am not sure at all that I can take credit for that. My parents had 5 children and we were all totally different, even though we were raised the same. The State declares that the child must attend school, thereby taking them out of the parents hands during that time. The time a child is at school is quite a big chunk of their waking day. Doesn't the school, thereby, inherit that proportion of the child rearing responsibility?

Additionally, Parents have very few places to seek help with a defiant child these days. And there are parents that cannot take off work at all, as well as many that do not get paid when they do. Are you proposing that a parent be forced to choose the child in question's school dilemma over that of housing/feeding his child?

I know that is not what you were advocating but those are dilemmas that parents could be put in as a result of this law. We need to be really careful when making new laws and they should never be enacted unless really necessary. I think we should seek other alternatives to this problem.

Not all parents are responsible and willing to work with the school. And now that many have caller ID, they don't even answer the phone when the school calls. I have several parents I call only with my cell phone.

I have a 12 year old student who is in the 4th grade. He has been in 14 different schools since kindergarten. He has missed over 50 days of school this year. That is over half the year. This kid's mother doesn't even make him come to school. State law says we have to retain kids when they miss 20 days. We also have to have a conference. Today is our parent teacher conferences and I am pretty sure this mom won't show up. She knows the rules and she knows she has to come and meet with us and sign papers before her kid can be retained.

If not for parents like her, we wouldn't need to even consider legislation like this. But since there are parents like this, I completely support this law.

Passing laws are the quick, easy solution but they make criminals out of those that are doing the best they can. I agree some parents are horrid. But parents that I think are horrid, another may think great. Families are one of the greatest privacies Americans have and the dilemma into how far we intrude is a delicate one. Of course, we need to protect family members from abuse but even there we have trouble distinguishing a firm line. And I still think that schools need to take a greater percentage of the child's problems upon themselves since they are there nearly 50% of their waking hours.

We are there to educate kids, not to raise them. Parents who do the best they can come to school and take part in their kids' education. If all parents were responsible, we would not need laws like this.

This is also another law that a good parent doesn't need to worry about. But unfortunately, not all parents take their responsibility seriously. A sad reality.

A few years back one of the lawmakers drafted a law that would require schools to put kids' body fat index on REPORT CARDS so the parents "could tell" if their kid was overweight. Never mind maybe making it so schools couldn't have junk/soda machines on campus for the kids or a law to improve school lunch nutrition...let's just fuck with the kids' self esteem and put the number on their report card so other kids can go "what's YOUR number?".
The proposed law never did pass but just the thought of some asswipe in Austin even thinking of such an idea showed how stupid our state lawmakers can be.

And if you are lucky she will agree with everything you say and then walk out and forget it.

And if you aren't lucky, well, maybe you better have them do a checkup on the metal detectors at all the doors.

And what would you be happy about being forced to do today?

But unfortunately, there are some who do not take their responsibility seriously.

I understand the frustration that spurred this law into being.

After spending the last 11 years actively volunteering in my daughter's schools (and working full time too, folks) I can say that there are just some parents out there that need to be forced to give a crap about their kids. It is really a shame and ticks me off to no end, but it is true. The teachers at my daughter's school all say the same thing - the parents who skip the conferences are generally the ones they really need to see.

And these parents aren't necessarily economically disadvantaged. We sure as hell aren't rich and our bosses aren't that forgiving, we aren't paid for out time off either, but we (Mr Verdalaven and I) manage. Our teachers also make time for a parent at the parent's convenience. So, short of a parent being in a coma, there is just no excuse for a parent not to pay a visit to the school once a year.

And just from what I have observed, the kids whose parents are active in the schools tend to do better academically and participate in more extracurriculars. The kids who parents are invisible tend to not do as well. Like it or not, that is just what I have seen. There are so many advantages to being an active parent, for the child AND the parent, I don't understand why so many parents don't do more.

that she wouldn't have the money to pay the fine. We have lots of parents like that in our area. They really are not parents, so much as people who happen to have given birth to children. They are not interested, for whatever reason, in their child's future. Fining them would not do any good, because they do not care.

If you schedule a conference with your kid's teacher and then don't show up how is that the kid's behavior? I am generally not inclined to punish parents for high school kid's behavior but that isn't what this proposal is.

a say in the scheduling? Secondly, how many appointments have you been froced to miss because something else came up, say work, another childs problem, financial problems etc? I have missed plenty of appointments because of work. If teachers were willing to meet 24 hrs a day, I might consider this bill, but I doubt it, even I wouldn't work that many hours a day.

In point of fact the parent is the one who picks the time not us. Three nights a year we stay until 9pm, every day we are there from 7am till 4pm, and we have email and phone. Sorry but I don't have a ton of sympathy for people who skip appointments they ask for and then decide to skip.

Just haven't had the same experience here. And Since I usually work from 7:30 am till about 11:00 pm I still don't see when we could meet.

And when do you even see your kids?

and luckily it is a 2 parent house (and spouse works very early hours and is home by 5 pm) with family members nearby. And I go out of my way to take off when he does need me.

and can schedule conferences with your child's teachers at your convenience. Sounds like you are a responsible parent and you would want to meet your child's teachers.

and not enough people to do it. And my boss works the same hours so can't complain there. And yes, I make the time for my son, but as I said before, I only have one, so it is not so bad. Plus, I am reasonably secure in my job and am an a position to put my son first. I just know that the choices the school has given me have not been easy to accommodate and I am sure there are parents who may not be able to do so at all. And there are kids that are simply beyond the parents ability to do anything about. I don't knows the answers but I hardly think fining or jailing parents is it.

I really disagree with this statement. Parents don't have the right to give up on kids, no matter how difficult they may be.

What is the first answer most school districts provide these days? Suspension or expulsion? Wonder what that tells a child? Just saying we are all responsible and should all help. Because, we all end up benefiting or suffering from the end result. And I still don't see how punishing parents helps a bit. If anything, parents need more help!

and neither do I. I teach special ed. My job is to not give up on the most difficult kids we serve.

I understand where you are coming from, my Sister-In-Law is Special Ed also and she can easily identify with you but she also has a child who,though never medically identified as such, appears to everyone who knows him (including her) as mildly autistic.

She complains about the parents of her kids all the time and yet I have a feeling they see her as overly intrusive and not really qualified. Don't get me wrong, she has taken all the training she needs to qualify for the job and I am sure she is an excellent teacher but there is no excellent parent training. And there can't be one way to raise children who differ so much.


I understand your dilemma. I guess I am asking you to understand, not my, but those that might have even more difficut dilemmas before we rush to another unenforceable, unfairly enforced law that liberals will be branded with.

for kids. So I don't really see this as an invasion of privacy. Like I said, if you are a responsible parent, this law will have zero impact on you.

kids. Schools have a big responsibility, as well, as do coaches, scout leaders, counselors, and a host of others. Are schools frequently too harsh with their discipline? I think so. All of this zero tolerance for violence and drugs sounds good, but when implemented with out flexibility, makes for some irrational discipline that is more geared to public relations than it is to helping youth.

I am an older parent (56 and my son is just graduating from high school this year) and a retired elementary school teacher in an urban district. The main problem I see both in my old district and my son's district and among his friends is that of parents who have not necessarily given up on their children, they just don't rate them any higher in their personal priorities than their careers, recreations, hobbies, wealth. I have seen less problems in families in which there may be a single parent with 2 or 3 jobs trying to make ends meet and support the children. Frequently children in those families are more mature and focused and have a level of respect for the efforts of the parent.

The bigger problem I have seen is in middle class or better families who have a nice house and cars. Parents are too often more concerned with career advancement and "keeping up with the Jones" than with what Johnny and Judy are doing in school and with their friends. Is there anything wrong with career advancement and acquiring more possessions? No, but there is a trade off with everything in life, and the more we concentrate on those things, the less time and attention we have for our children. I know too many lawyers and successful businesspeople who have children who are in juvenile detention or will not be graduating from high school, much less college.

(I won't even get into the problems of poverty, drugs and family breakdown that affects the children in an urban school district. This post is already too long.)

I think they have a very difficult job and we have been lucky to have some great ones. Just that the schools don't always remember that the rest of us may have as bad or even worse hours on our own jobs. And yes, I have usually (stress usually) found the teachers in our district to be quite accommodating when needed. Then again, we moved to this neighborhood because of the school district. I can guarantee, that the public school district in the community that we lived previously would not have taken parents needs into consideration.

I hate to hear that others are not.

I don't need to see parents if they can't get to the school, but I do think it is reasonable for them to be expected to call me or email me if I need to speak to them.

When my kids were in school, there was no email. I played phone tag with way too many teachers. LOL

I have never heard of schools setting a time and forcing parents to come only at that time.

But I will be happy to pass your message along to them. I don't really have a problem with the school since I wouldn't expect anyone to be available when I am but the hours we had a choice of were like 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm Mnday through Thursday for a 2 week period, on a first come (ask), first appointment basis.

they would work with you on a time. If they don't then you would have a damn good reason to call the superintendent's office and complain.

Parents walk in all the time without appointments. And we meet with them. I can't even imagine a school saying no this is not a convenient time.

I show up for these things, but somehow threatening me with fines and misdemeanors doesnt make sense. Im lucky, I work at home, and schedule my own hours. I have several friends that have jobs that dont always allow for time off. Next, will I have to join the PTA or face fines?

and yet I have always managed to make these appointments so far. But my kid hasn't had any problems and I still find it difficult to make the appointments (and these are given appointments - notrequested). I set my kid as a priority and fight to get to his functions, but I only have one kid and it is still difficult. I missed my own dentist appointment last month because I was stuck in a meeting and still haven't had time to make it up and it was really an important one.

I wish all you parents who criticize this would give lessons to the parents who don't take an active part in their child's education. You would truly be amazed by the parents who never come to school. They also usually don't make their kids come to school and they don't make them do their homework either.

And with the increased accountability for schools under NCLB, I am afraid laws like this will not go away.

I sm asking for better solutions. The easiest answer is not usually the best and I think this is a perfect example. Once again, I do want to emphasize that I have a great respect for teachers and feel that any solution will be to increase their pay to more accurately reflect the benefit that society gets from them. Move over, Bill Gates!

form with the time and date that they wish to attend. Our schools offer daytime and evening conferences on a first sign up first served basis. I don't see anything wrong with this law. It is sad that we've gotten to such a state that this would be needed. If you care enough to have them you should be able to care enough to spend the 15 minutes it usually takes to stay involved in their education via the teacher.

add get your approval before they can? I know you don't mean it that way but that is what it came across as. All kinds of people have kids and not all of them have the means or the beliefs to raise them the way you think they should be raised. If we give you the right to chose how they should be raised what would preclude the Christian Right from dictating how they should be raised? I am calling a RED FLAG warning here. Think Duers, think!

cannot take 15 minutes (scheduled weeks in advance) there is seriously something wrong with their thinking. I've somehow managed to make it to all of my kids' conferences even when I was working two jobs. This has nothing to do with the Christian Right. Nice to see that tied in though. I am allowed my own opinion, no?

this is not something you can IMO enforce by law. Make them send the children to school; ensure that they're educated; yes... but there comes a point where you could end up making everything a law. If parents don't care about their children's education , this is frequently due to the parents' own negative educational experiences, and not to lack of concern for the children's welfare as the parents see it: i.e. they care about their children, but they don't value education. And you can't *force* them by law to value education. If this is their attitude, then they probably wouldn't contribute much to parent/teacher conferences anyway, and the resources might be better put into giving the children more attention at school, and providing more out-of-school educational and cultural facilities for both children and adults, including educational TV.

willing to work with me regarding a schedule.

I have even had telephone conferences that were very productive.

So I agree with you, if you have them and keep them, you are obligated to care for them appropriately.

shitty parents to change their ways. You may be able to force them to go to a parent/teacher conference but what the hell else do you do with them the rest of the time?

they can have their kids taken away. That law has been on the books for many years now.

It is obvious the Republicans aren't willing to support the born, so are you willing to wrest control from all these parents and raise them yourself? I wonder if that won't end up in the news just like all the poor animal lovers who try to rescue all of them do. BTW, I am an animal (and child lover). But I can already see your house depicted in the police report after your arrest for being a negligent parent, squalid conditions, living room covered with crayons, paper and other debris, 2 children in "DIRTY" diapers, a rat like creature running amok (claimed to be a pet hamster by defendant). Laugh now, but I dare you to adopt all those kids.

so yes, I am willing to adopt the kids whose parents don't take care of them.

Yesterday on my way home from my 10 hour work day, I stopped and bought a coat for a kid who doesn't have one.

Every kid I teach has my phone number and can call me anytime for help with homework or anything else they need.

Every year at Christmas, I adopt families of kids and not only spend my own money but pester my friends for donations to help buy presents for kids who wouldn't have a Christmas otherwise.

I have signed up for CASA training and will soon be a volunteer in that program.

And when I retire, I am seriously considering becoming a foster parent.

So yes, I do walk the walk.

I know a lot of teachers...including my daughter...and constantly hear from them about the troubles they have in teaching today as opposed to babysitting. Many of these kids come from a home with one problem or another...and they bring a lot of those troubles with them to school. It makes the teacher's job harder and hampers the entire class...especially when a student has a serious disciplinary problem. Parents have and always been a key in helping their kids do well or poorly in school.

As a kid, I hated when my parents met with my teachers, but I was glad someone cared. As a parent, my wife and I both attended school conferences and open houses as a sign of both respect to the teachers and to show our children we were interested in what they were doing. Sadly, I know we're in the minority. A teacher friend of mine complained about the lack of parental involvement and how that does affect how a kid performs in school...many who come from very fine homes but that mom and dad couldn't be bothered with "kids stuff"...or think that a parent/teacher meeting means their kid is doing bad.

Parents have to be held responsible for what their kids do. A major job of parenting is to make sure your children get the best education they can and to take an active role in a child's development. Meeting with teachers is a part of this responsibility. Maybe hitting some of these people in the pocketbook will get them to pay a little more attention to what's going on with their children.

That's the "spreading democracy through bombs" mentality and it doesn't work. A lot of those who would be penalized have a hard time keeping food on the table - how the hell are they supposed to pay a $500 fine? And the affluent who just don't have time? They'll pay the fine and continue to do as they wish.

Parents who aren't involved often had parents that weren't involved; the problem is much more complicated. Education of these parents and outreach might help but it will take more than just slapping a fine on people to change their behavior.

And then there's the Texas public school system itself. These stupid-ass legislators might want to look in their own back yard first and realize that frustration on every level - teachers, students and parents - is their fault and the biggest cause of non-involvement.

If a parent is neglecting their children's education, they might as well be keeping food off the table...the food of knowledge and hurting their children's chances of doing well in school and advancing in soceity. If the fine is too expensive, then that will be one hell of an incentive for a parent to take the hour or so to meet a teacher and find out how their child is doing.

It's obvious here many don't have children or have seen a lot of the problems facing teachers. This isn't "spreading democracy through firebombs" (hyperbole a hobby of yours??), it's reversing a disturbing trend of parents not paying attention to their children and trying to palm off their responsibilities on the school systems and teachers. It's about the hours of class time that is lost each year when a teacher has to discipline a disruptive student or deal with a child's personal crisis since there isn't a parent around who gives a shit.

I'm certain there are lots of problems in the Texas Public School system...c'mon, asshat was governor there and it's been noted how poorly the state rates nationally. That's not the issue here. It's holding parents accountable for their children. When you're a parent you have a legal obligation to your child until they're 18...and ensuring they are doing well in school is part of that obligation. It's a shame there has to be legislation to get some parents off their asses.

Have you ever had to worry about making it to the next paycheck? Or if you'd be evicted because you couldn't pay the rent? It's easy to say we have to hold people accountable - to say one has a legal obligation to that child until it's 18 - but when people are expending all their efforts surviving day to day, it's difficult to make them understand how important it is to attend a teacher conference, especially when they may lose their job if they aren't at work.

I live in South Texas and I am the single mother of three children. I know first hand how screwed up the public school system is and I know the 'type' of parent these legislators want to fine - it's not those who have the money, it's those that can't afford 500 bucks. The drop-out rate is disastrous now and this move would only make it worse (which is perhaps what they want).

A parent cannot be forced to care about their child's education by making them pay money. It's ridiculous to think so.

Nice try.

I have a great deal of sympathy about living from paycheck to paycheck. That's how my wife and I raised our children and constantly had to battle with feeding mouths, keeping bills paid and still being responsible parents. I know how big $500 looks when you're trying to scrape up $50 for groceries. This has nothing to do with spending an hour to find out about how your children are doing in school.

According the most state laws, a parnt can be forced to care about their child's education. In my state, children are required to attend school until the age of 16 and parents remain liable for their children's actions until they're 18. If they get in a traffic accident, YOU are the one responsible. If they don't attend class, you are required to make sure they attend. Again, I fail to see what's so terrible about spending an hour at a school to find out about how one's child is doing.

A major reason public schools are screwed up is because many parents either can't be bothered or cop the attitude that the schools suck anyone so why take them seriously. One year, I went to a Parents Night and there were only 3 parents (out of a Class of 20) who showed. The teacher had a frustrated look and thanked us for being the few that care...and how it makes their job harder as when the kids know the parents don't care, the kids don't care either.

While I don't walk in your shoes, I can understand your struggles...we all have them, but this isn't about the money, it's about an investment in one's children. It's a shame government is being forced to make parents take an interest in their child's education. I'm sure the School District will be flexible in arranging times for conferences...our district always has been. They know about single working parents...dare I say many of them are in a similar situation.

So make up excuses and fake indignation. If money and complying with a law is more important than a child's education, then you have my sympathies.

Peace...

I won't discuss this with you anymore, since it's clear you lack the ability to consider other views about this issue without condescension. I find it curious you infer I have "struggles" (whatever that means to you) from what I wrote in my post. Is it because I said I was a single mother with three children?

Peace.

I'm not into getting personal on here...I'm sticking on the topic...and discussing. I know that's a novel concept around this place these days, but I want to hear your opinion and then exchange ideas. I don't expect you to agree with me or visa versa, but I do want to get your perspective and your assuming I'm being condescending and pick on you or your situation is reading way more into both my posts and this message board than one should.

Of course I don't know your struggles. As I posted earlier, I haven't walked in your shoes, but then you haven't walked in mine, either. This has nothing to do with being a single parent as I've seen more latch key kids from "married" families...families where mom and dad are too busy with work or social life to take an interest in how their children are doing. Sadly, I've seen too many kids who have grown up alienated or have had other problems due to parents who have left them to fend on their own.

Again, this is not directed at you or anyone in specific, but if outrage over a $500 fine means more than finding out about one's child, that says something about the parent.

Living in Texas and being involved in school politics, I KNOW this fine is not being proposed in the best interest of the children. I am immediately suspicious when those idiots sitting in Austin say they are doing it to make things better - they're not. I could write a book on everything they've done to screw up the schools.

I will say this one more time. Government intervention by forcing people to pay a fine WILL NOT change behavior - it just won't. If you are certain it will, I'd appreciate an example.

Oh - and for what it's worth - you did get personal by saying I was faking indignation. ;-)

I live in CA, but we have the same problems. Applying a fine will not improve parenting. If anything, this might push the kids into the underfunded foster care system, because the parents could not or would not pay the fine.

The problem cannot be addressed by fining parents- it is too late. The real issue is people becoming parents while not wanting to be parents. Children are not fluffy kittens or puppies; they require 18+ years of intense attention to become fully "human".

and I agree (bet I fooled you for a moment). We can't be the party who stands for freedom and democracy and yet legislates everything. I say that as the biggest peace, animal, environmental loving person that I know. We don't need laws for everything. Education does work. You rarely see a person picking there nose in public because we have taught the majority that it is wrong. There are still a few that do. Does that mean we need to legislate it? And if we do, might you not be the one caught , in that rare moment that you simply must and you think your are alone , by a hidden government camera? Good grief, this is big government at its worst. Let's concentrate on the important issues now like my 18 year old being drafted by Dumya into World War III, a distinct possibility if "Shrub" (RIP Molly} continues his unabashed oil driven Imperialism.

That would give it a better chance of passage.

some people just suck at parenting. They can give excuse after excuse, but most schools will work with your schedule so the work excuse is just ...well an excuse.

There are people out there that just don't give a shit, they have kids and the rest is a test of the Darwinian theories.

The kids either succeed or they fail and in many cases if they do succeed they do so in spite of parental obstacles...like the kind of parents who don't sign permission slips for field trips or who fail to get their kids up on time.

I have a cousin who is a nice person but a horrible parent. Her first child helped raise his siblings, but he really needed to be mothered and cared for but in the end he is a high school dropout who can't even pass the test to get into the military. My cousin was upset that the school district sent truant officers to her house...she felt it was her son's responsibility to care for himself.

Her second son (soon to be a father) was addicted to meth and selling it as well. He got a GED but his life prospects are looking so hot.

Her third one is in the school system now...but my hopes aren't that high...who knows maybe he will do better.

As a mother of school age children in the Texas public school system - I applaud your excellent proposal! :thumbsup: :hi:

That said, making it criminal is ludicrous.

That, along with the tremendous power of the corporation, who's need for productivity requires the power of the state, and vice versa. It's pretty interesting to watch.

We certainly own ourselves less and less.