How much power should schools have?

[boettj]

I believe most people on this thread are in agreement about the different levels of school. Elementary is not as bad to take a child out for a week. As they enter middle school/junior high, it becomes more difficult to take them out. Once they are in high school, missing a week is tough to recover from.


What I find odd about this is that when you build a house, the foundation is the most important part. Children receive their foundation in elementary. The place where most of us tend to take them out of. I am included in this practice. As the house goes up, more attention to detail arises, and most of us would not take their child out for a week. I've always found this to be interesting.


I don't think there is an easy answer to this question. Each family must be realistic in their decision whether or not to take their child out of school. Every child is different. You may have a child that excels, and can afford to miss a week. Or you might be like myself who has two children with IEPs.


With an IEP most people would say the child cannot afford to miss school. For the most part this is an accurate statement. However, I make up for them missing school with requests for school work while on vacation, and with tutors in the summer. Summer tutors eliminate the summer gap (which is more prevalent with students that have an IEP.), and also puts them ahead a touch. As a result, my DCs are on target.


Also, we do not take them out every year. Add to that, both of our DCs have only missed one day of school this year. In fact that is pretty common for us. Only one to four days missed each year over the past 5 years.


In our case, the school has never questioned us taking the kids out of school. However, every kid/family is different. What works for one does not always work for everyone. Again, that is us. Not all parents are as proactive with their children.


I do believe there is a point where schools must act in the best interest of the children. This then affects parents like us. How does the school decide who gets preferential treatment? Should they have to do this? Parents would like to have the school look at it as a case by case. However, the question becomes, what is the school there for in the first place? Simple answer is to education our children.


I am not a teacher. Nor do I want schools parenting for me. However, you have to look at the big picture when you criticize the school administration. You might be the perfect parent that is active. However, how about the other 250+ children's parents?


Sun is out, and it looks to be a great Monday. Have a great day.

 

[Colleen27]

I totally agree about the school calendar and I so wish we had the year round calendar where I teach!
I wouldn't say it is the NEA thinking parents are unfit. It all goes back to NO Child Left Behind and funding, and that is not made by the NEA, trust me. I can't see how it is a bad a idea to limit children missing school. As a teacher, I don't particularly like when my students miss a week because I spend time putting the work together, and it hardly ever gets completed. Missing a week of middle school math can take a solid two hours to catch someone up on the topic alone.

Where people tend to get the impression that NEA thinks parents are unfit (a stronger word than I'd use, I'd probably say inadequate) is largely from their efforts to subject homeschoolers to all of the same regulations that public schools are subject to - requiring teachers licensing and standardized testing and state-approved curriculum. That does come across as a belief that parents aren't capable of raising children without expert input, but I don't think it has anything to do with school attendance requirements and everything to do with something all unions work for - job security. Too many families opting out of public schools means fewer NEA jobs.

 

[taylor3297]

Where people tend to get the impression that NEA thinks parents are unfit (a stronger word than I'd use, I'd probably say inadequate) is largely from their efforts to subject homeschoolers to all of the same regulations that public schools are subject to - requiring teachers licensing and standardized testing and state-approved curriculum. That does come across as a belief that parents aren't capable of raising children without expert input, but I don't think it has anything to do with school attendance requirements and everything to do with something all unions work for - job security. Too many families opting out of public schools means fewer NEA jobs.

Just an FYI, not all states have teacher unions.

 

[boettj]

Just an FYI, not all states have teacher unions.

Really? I honestly did not know that. The teacher unit in RI is very strong. Once a teacher reaches tenure, then getting rid of them in just not happening.

 

[taylor3297]

Really? I honestly did not know that. The teacher unit in RI is very strong. Once a teacher reaches tenure, then getting rid of them in just not happening.

I have taught in GA and NC and neither state allows teacher unions. GA no longer has tenure available but has due process for letting a teacher go. It used to be until you were tenured you could be let go and did not have to be told why. Now you have to be informed as to why your contract is not being renewed.

In NC teachers do acquire "Career Status" (tenure) but these teachers can be let go as long as administration documents everything. The teachers of course have to be given a chance to improve, but in some cases (insubordination) documentation is all that is needed.

 

[crisi]

The ARROGANCE of this statement is appalling! What, exactly, gives any teacher/principal/administrator the right to even think they are somehow qualified to sit in judgment? I'm not talking about the kids who are black & blue all over, but just like any entity tasting power the schools have decided they know best and we parents are just supposed to take it. Reason 4,231 for homeschooling!

I guess I've been exposed to the sicker side of parenting - the family that had their eight year old home from school because "someone needed to watch the baby" (Mom being too busy doing whatever she did). The family who had five daughters, all pulled out of the home due to incest when they were 13 or 14. Excessive absenteeism is often a symptom of issues at the home that we SHOULD judge - we have a responsibility to protect other people's children if those other people have shown themselves to be unfit.

 

[boettj]

I have taught in GA and NC and neither state allows teacher unions. GA no longer has tenure available but has due process for letting a teacher go. It used to be until you were tenured you could be let go and did not have to be told why. Now you have to be informed as to why your contract is not being renewed.

In NC teachers do acquire "Career Status" (tenure) but these teachers can be let go as long as administration documents everything. The teachers of course have to be given a chance to improve, but in some cases (insubordination) documentation is all that is needed.

I don't see how teachers can be let go without due process. However, I just can't agree with teachers under tenure with so much leniency. In RI the union is rather powerful, and it takes an act of god or for a teacher to shot a student. That was an attempt at some levity, but I bet it falls on it's face.

 

[badblackpug]

The ARROGANCE of this statement is appalling! What, exactly, gives any teacher/principal/administrator the right to even think they are somehow qualified to sit in judgment? I'm not talking about the kids who are black & blue all over, but just like any entity tasting power the schools have decided they know best and we parents are just supposed to take it. Reason 4,231 for homeschooling!

Please read the entire post carefully. This one sentence was taken out of context. The OP went on to discuss parents that were uninvolved in their children's lives and education. This was not a blanket statement to cover all parents. There are parents out there who are not involved. This is not a debate about home schooling.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

Where people tend to get the impression that NEA thinks parents are unfit (a stronger word than I'd use, I'd probably say inadequate) is largely from their efforts to subject homeschoolers to all of the same regulations that public schools are subject to - requiring teachers licensing and standardized testing and state-approved curriculum. That does come across as a belief that parents aren't capable of raising children without expert input, but I don't think it has anything to do with school attendance requirements and everything to do with something all unions work for - job security. Too many families opting out of public schools means fewer NEA jobs.

Think about it this way, if there were no rules for attendance, and children could come and go to school as their parents pleased (or perhaps how they please depending on their parents), the educational climate would be terrible. The curriculum would have to be adjusted for constantly repeating lessons for absent students, and I am sure with constant absences, classroom management would be difficult. This would end up being greatly detrimental to the students who DO come to school on a regular basis.

Please don't be so offended (not directed at the person I quoted) by rules made by the school or thoughts by the NEA. They do not think that YOU PERSONALLY are unfit or inadequate in any way, but there are parents who ARE. Rules are made to help those students. If there were not regulations for homeschooling, I am sure there would be parents who would not be homeschooling in an effective manner - and I am not saying you need to follow the NEA's recommendations to do so - but you know there would be some parents slacking. These laws and rules are there to protect the children who need them. Do you know what I mean?

 

[Nicoleclaw]

When my kids started school in Florida many years ago our school was piloting a year round calendar. We LOVED it!!! MOST parents hated it for several reasons:
1- They worked and the day care thought it was a hassle
2- They had older kids on a traditional calendar so they rarely were all off at the same time
3- Sports and summer camps at the YMCA and all of the REST of the world was still on the traditional calendar
4- Many people just don't like change
5- Even though they got the same amount of time off each year it felt like less because they never got that LONG summer break we used to have

The pilot program was a failure. I would have loved to stay with it. We have since moved several times and now we homeschool. The old school calendar is based on kids helping with the farm all summer. It is antiquated!

I understand that a lot of the rules schools make are based on funding, and also there are a lot of bad parents out there, but basically the NEA thinks that all of us are unfit parents and we would be better off just giving our kids over to the government at birth.
Be careful who you vote for, with the current administration things are bound to get worse. Research the UN "rights of the child" bill. Figure out which politicians back it. Get informed and involved!

I totally agree about the school calendar and I so wish we had the year round calendar where I teach!
I wouldn't say it is the NEA thinking parents are unfit. It all goes back to NO Child Left Behind and funding, and that is not made by the NEA, trust me. I can't see how it is a bad a idea to limit children missing school.

Where people tend to get the impression that NEA thinks parents are unfit (a stronger word than I'd use, I'd probably say inadequate) is largely from their efforts to subject homeschoolers to all of the same regulations that public schools are subject to - requiring teachers licensing and standardized testing and state-approved curriculum. That does come across as a belief that parents aren't capable of raising children without expert input, but I don't think it has anything to do with school attendance requirements and everything to do with something all unions work for - job security. Too many families opting out of public schools means fewer NEA jobs.

The original conversation had nothing to do with homeschooling, but with absence policies and school rules, which is why I said the NEA had nothing to do with NCLB.

 

[boettj]

Think about it this way, if there were no rules for attendance, and children could come and go to school as their parents pleased (or perhaps how they please depending on their parents), the educational climate would be terrible. The curriculum would have to be adjusted for constantly repeating lessons for absent students, and I am sure with constant absences, classroom management would be difficult. This would end up being greatly detrimental to the students who DO come to school on a regular basis.

Please don't be so offended (not directed at the person I quoted) by rules made by the school or thoughts by the NEA. They do not think that YOU PERSONALLY are unfit or inadequate in any way, but there are parents who ARE. Rules are made to help those students. If there were not regulations for homeschooling, I am sure there would be parents who would not be homeschooling in an effective manner - and I am not saying you need to follow the NEA's recommendations to do so - but you know there would be some parents slacking. These laws and rules are there to protect the children who need them. Do you know what I mean?

You know Nicole, you have a point. In fact, I would go even further. What should happen is that at the end of elementary, all students are tested. They either pass the test to go on to college. If not, then they are put into a vocational program.

This would significantly reduce the amount of students that matter when it comes to attendance. Don't take me wrong, but if you are not in the college program, it's up to the student/parent to ensure they have the skills to get a job after vocational school.

The kids that go into the college prep program are the ones that the school system can babysit.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

You know Nicole, you have a point. In fact, I would go even further. What should happen is that at the end of elementary, all students are tested. They either pass the test to go on to college. If not, then they are put into a vocational program.

This would significantly reduce the amount of students that matter when it comes to attendance. Don't take me wrong, but if you are not in the college program, it's up to the student/parent to ensure they have the skills to get a job after vocational school.

The kids that go into the college prep program are the ones that the school system can babysit.

I have to be honest, I am a bit confused. How does that have anything to do with what I said?

 

[MiniGirl]

Think about it this way, if there were no rules for attendance, and children could come and go to school as their parents pleased (or perhaps how they please depending on their parents), the educational climate would be terrible. The curriculum would have to be adjusted for constantly repeating lessons for absent students, and I am sure with constant absences, classroom management would be difficult. This would end up being greatly detrimental to the students who DO come to school on a regular basis.

I don't think anyone here has said that school attendance should be a free for all. I understand that attendance policies need to be in effect. I just think that common sense needs to be used when policing them.

A student who is doing well and is not, by all accounts, in an abusive situation should not be threatened with having to repeat a grade solely because they missed "X" number of school days. I shouldn't be forced to send my child to school when she is sick because she isn't necessarily "sick enough" to go to a doctor, but we can't afford to have another missed day on her record. (Around here, ANY absence without a doctor's note is unexcused, and many parents do send their children to school sick now as a result of this crack down in attendance. If the school sends the child home sick, it is excused, but if I call and say my dd is sick or send a note in on her return, it doesn't matter. It is unexcused because we didn't go to a doctor or see the school nurse.)

Just a little common sense is all I'm saying........

 

[boettj]

I have to be honest, I am a bit confused. How does that have anything to do with what I said?

It was not an attack of what you said. You were talking about the bedlam of no rules. My answer to the rules is to restructure our school system to allow the Darwinian theory to take place. Survival of the fittest. The fittest being those who are going on to a college track.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

I don't think anyone here has said that school attendance should be a free for all. I understand that attendance policies need to be in effect. I just think that common sense needs to be used when policing them.

A student who is doing well and is not, by all accounts, in an abusive situation should not be threatened with having to repeat a grade solely because they missed "X" number of school days. I shouldn't be forced to send my child to school when she is sick because she isn't necessarily "sick enough" to go to a doctor, but we can't afford to have another missed day on her record. (Around here, ANY absence without a doctor's note is unexcused, and many parents do send their children to school sick now as a result of this crack down in attendance. If the school sends the child home sick, it is excused, but if I call and say my dd is sick or send a note in on her return, it doesn't matter. It is unexcused because we didn't go to a doctor or see the school nurse.)

Just a little common sense is all I'm saying........

Wait a second here.....I agree with you. Common sense does need to be used when enforcing the policies. Please don't be offended by my post, I never said anyone said it should be a free for all. I am just saying there has to be a certain rule, a number to go by. You can't put what you have said in writing in the school planner next to the attendance policy. I was just saying that there NEEDS TO BE A POLICY. (not yelling just stressing those words! lol) I am also trying to show that the policy is not to punish parents, but to help their children by having their classmates show up at school on a regular basis. But I am curious as to how many school days they can miss as unexcused and if you know of anyone that has actually had to repeat a grade due to absences. The district where I teach, you get a letter at 10 days....nothing is going to happen, just a letter saying hey, your kid missed 10 days. I have had numerous students miss 20+ days a year over the last 9 years and NONE of them were denied credit. I have no idea why they missed them, they may have been excused.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

It was not an attack of what you said. You were talking about the bedlam of no rules. My answer to the rules is to restructure our school system to allow the Darwinian theory to take place. Survival of the fitest. The fitest being those who are going on to a college track.

I would say that attendance is important for everyone, not just those on a college track. I also think that elementary school would be too early to determine that as well. I have tons of kids come back to me a after a year or two in high school and tell me how they decided to start doing their work! lol A couple years too late for my benefit!

It is interesting though.

 

[Colleen27]

Think about it this way, if there were no rules for attendance, and children could come and go to school as their parents pleased (or perhaps how they please depending on their parents), the educational climate would be terrible. The curriculum would have to be adjusted for constantly repeating lessons for absent students, and I am sure with constant absences, classroom management would be difficult. This would end up being greatly detrimental to the students who DO come to school on a regular basis.

Please don't be so offended (not directed at the person I quoted) by rules made by the school or thoughts by the NEA. They do not think that YOU PERSONALLY are unfit or inadequate in any way, but there are parents who ARE. Rules are made to help those students. If there were not regulations for homeschooling, I am sure there would be parents who would not be homeschooling in an effective manner - and I am not saying you need to follow the NEA's recommendations to do so - but you know there would be some parents slacking. These laws and rules are there to protect the children who need them. Do you know what I mean?

No one is suggesting a free for all, just some common sense. Any teacher can point out the kids who are from those marginal or flat out bad family situations that need help. There's no reason for strict blanket policies to address those situations, any more than there is reason for all parents to be subjected to home studies and social worker involvement because some parents are abusive or neglectful.

There are virtually no regulations for homeschooling in my state and yet it is a highly successful form of education. What bothers me about the NEA position on homeschooling is that they rail against the amount of time, energy, and resources spent on testing and other NCLB requirements in public schools but then push to have all those very same rules extended to homeschoolers. And personally, I don't think children should be protected from their own parents as a matter of routine. That should be something that applies only to abuse and neglect, not to caring parents making choices that are outside the mainstream norms.

 

[jessica52877]

This varies widely from state to state but here in GA like I said earlier it is taken to the extreme. Parents have been put in jail for it and these weren't neglectful parents. It was done to prove a point that the school has the final say. We aren't talking passing and failing grades here as much as were are talking jail time and a criminal record.

And I would send my child to school sick before I would keep them home unexcused because they weren't sick enough to go to the doctor.

 

[boettj]

I would say that attendance is important for everyone, not just those on a college track. I also think that elementary school would be too early to determine that as well. I have tons of kids come back to me a after a year or two in high school and tell me how they decided to start doing their work! lol A couple years too late for my benefit!

It is interesting though.

I tell you it's tough to not go off the reservation with this topic. Trust me, I realize this about attendance. However, the reality is that this topic truly goes much deeper than simple attendance. Why are schools pushing stricter attendance policies? The simple answer is funding, but why funding? Some politicians have decided that attendance is related to a child's success. Or something along those lines. Therefore, many places such as California hinge funding to attendance. If your child is not there, then the school misses out on money.


Personally I am not seeing how reducing money because some kids miss school helps. No kid left behind is the problem. Not everyone can succeed. Everyone develops at different rates. Yet we try to put a square peg in a round whole. If they don't fit, we figure a way to make it work.


Rather it should be simply put, the teacher has a standard the children need to attain by the end of the year. If a child can't make it, then they get left behind to retake that year over.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

No one is suggesting a free for all, just some common sense. Any teacher can point out the kids who are from those marginal or flat out bad family situations that need help. There's no reason for strict blanket policies to address those situations, any more than there is reason for all parents to be subjected to home studies and social worker involvement because some parents are abusive or neglectful.

There are virtually no regulations for homeschooling in my state and yet it is a highly successful form of education. What bothers me about the NEA position on homeschooling is that they rail against the amount of time, energy, and resources spent on testing and other NCLB requirements in public schools but then push to have all those very same rules extended to homeschoolers. And personally, I don't think children should be protected from their own parents as a matter of routine. That should be something that applies only to abuse and neglect, not to caring parents making choices that are outside the mainstream norms.

Well, I can't really speak for the homeschooling issue, nor to do I care to, I did not bring that up.

I again was not saying it that anyone wanted a free for all. I was just saying there needs to be a written policy for attendance in place for several reasons. I am not sure what exactly what you would like the written policy to be? And what some of you are considering strict? 10 days? 20 days? What exactly would you like it to say in the parent handbook?