Skip parent teacher conference? Go to jail.

[msduncan]

Proposal by Detroit prosecutor.

Nanny state anyone?

[El Guapo]

Yeah, jailing the parents ought to help the kid.

[Fretmute]

"We have to find any means necessary to get parents involved . . . "

. . . like keeping them from being involved because they're in jail!

[edit] - Each of us has an El Guapo to face. For me, El Guapo is El Guapo.

[LordMortis]

Wow. I have liked Kym Worthy in the past. But this is just a crazy bandaid proposal. As if a parole visit with a teacher once a year is somehow going to get parents more involved in failing children's educations and as if sending them to jail for failure to show up is going to help either.

OTOH, throwing money at the problem is beginning to help in ways I hadn't expected. Many local districts are starting to start school earlier and providing warm breakfasts every day as part of the school day. I don't like throwing more money at schools. I don't like giving schools even more of a role in parenting. But sadly, it seems to be needed and seems to be helping. So we get stuck with a dreaded ends justifies the means situation applied in a way that you normally wouldn't think of as bad.

[silverjon]

This proposal seems to me to be biased against low income brackets.

[Captain Caveman]

This makes about as much sense as building more grocery stores in Africa to combat hunger.

[cheeba]

Detroit schools have a 25% graduation rate. 25%. To me, Detroit is a national emergency and should receive more federal attention than Katrina. As a city it is fundamentally broken. A proposal like this seems absolutely insane, but Detroit needs something drastic and shocking.

[LordMortis]

Detroit schools have a 25% graduation rate. 25%. To me, Detroit is a national emergency and should receive more federal attention than Katrina. As a city it is fundamentally broken. A proposal like this seems absolutely insane, but Detroit needs something drastic and shocking.

Detroit has been improving (on droprate, not necessarily on education). I can remember a time when we were at a 10% graduation rate and we were listed as 20% as recently as 2006.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... ates_x.htm" target="_blank

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr20 ... -a03.shtml" target="_blank

And as horrible as it is, it's urban epidemic, not just a Detroit epidemic. I concur that something needs to be done and it needs to be done on the local level(s). I just can't imagine how this is it.

Like I said before even though I am unhappy about the implications of breakfast in school, I am happy that it seems to be yielding results. You are guaranteeing that kids aren't thinking about food and giving them more incentive to be in school and taken more burden off the parents for child rearing (be that good or bad).

[Combustible Lemur]

I'm a little split on the breakfast in school thing, but not much. It does get "padded" (begging the kids to have their parents sign a form that says they are poor even if they are not so poor as to not afford breakfast. As this brings us the money, from other sources who look at economic demographics, to fund all the stuff that has been getting kids more involved and raising both test, and graduation rates). But at the same time, I have a not insignificant nuber of kids who DO NOT have money to eat breakfast. Kids who get pulled out of school to get jobs to support the family because parents can't or won't. Or there are too many kids.
Let them be hungry and lower scores and raise drop outs. Feed them and get them programs that convince them they can have a future if they put out the effort. I have fed several of my students out of pocket because the cupboard is empty. Not a pleasant feeling. Especially when you get to hear outside people give the NO GOVERNMENT in School. Pull the bootstraps!. I understand that mentality, but it's hard on the front line.

"I hear a little kid whose stomach is growlin".... and he's standing in my office.

[LordMortis]

I'm a little split on the breakfast in school thing, but not much. It does get "padded" (begging the kids to have their parents sign a form that says they are poor even if they are not so poor as to not afford breakfast. As this brings us the money, from other sources who look at economic demographics, to fund all the stuff that has been getting kids more involved and raising both test, and graduation rates). But at the same time, I have a not insignificant nuber of kids who DO NOT have money to eat breakfast. Kids who get pulled out of school to get jobs to support the family because parents can't or won't. Or there are too many kids.
Let them be hungry and lower scores and raise drop outs. Feed them and get them programs that convince them they can have a future if they put out the effort. I have fed several of my students out of pocket because the cupboard is empty. Not a pleasant feeling. Especially when you get to hear outside people give the NO GOVERNMENT in School. Pull the bootstraps!. I understand that mentality, but it's hard on the front line.

"I hear a little kid whose stomach is growlin".... and he's standing in my office.

Around here the districts that adopt breakfast don't make you qualify. They feed every one. I don't mind the cost. What I fear is that we are giving our children and the responsibility of raising them more and more over to schools. Aside from that I don't see a downside (cost aside). And it seems to be yielding results. I'm sad at this. The idea that school breakfast is needed suggests that handing more responsibility for raising our children to schools is warranted. It's all very hard to deal with.

[Combustible Lemur]

yeah, with the compulsory breakfast, your photo is apt. Ours is $sold$ to those who don't qualify.

[jimbo]

Around here the districts that adopt breakfast don't make you qualify. They feed every one. I don't mind the cost. What I fear is that we are giving our children and the responsibility of raising them more and more over to schools. Aside from that I don't see a downside (cost aside). And it seems to be yielding results. I'm sad at this. The idea that school breakfast is needed suggests that handing more responsibility for raising our children to schools is warranted. It's all very hard to deal with.

But by the time the school decides that it needs to serve breakfast hasn't the responsibility of raising the child been given up. If kids are showing up to school hungry, whether because their family cannot afford to feed them, there is no one home when they wake up to feed them (i.e. the parent(s) are working or sleeping after working all night), or no one cares to feed them; it seems like the school has no choice. Not because the government wants to take over child care and start raising children but because the actual people that teach these kids hate to see them hungry. I find it hard to believe that a school district where all of the kids came to school well fed (if such a place exists) would start a breakfast program.

It seems like the people who are worried about the nanny state taking over the care of children are taking care of their kids. The people who can't or won't take care of their kids should be able to rely on the community to some extent to make sure they are fed. We can argue all day about whether people should have kids they can't afford but when the kids do in fact exist there is really no argument about whether or not they should be cared for. I think that as a society it is not unreasonable to feed kids who are hungry no matter how they got that way (because it is not their fault after all).

[LordMortis]

And that is precisely why I am sad and why it's hard to deal with. The fact that it's working. That school breakfast is a positive mean to a positive end when it shouldn't be sucks. And it is also an example where throwing money at problem provides (something approximating) a solution, which I also don't care for.

[Arcanis]

And that is precisely why I am sad and why it's hard to deal with. The fact that it's working. That school breakfast is a positive mean to a positive end when it shouldn't be sucks. And it is also an example where throwing money at problem provides (something approximating) a solution, which I also don't care for.

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say this is solving the problem it is just fixing one of they symptoms of the problem. Unfortunately I see no way to fix the underlying problem of poor parenting and/or un(der)prepared parents. Imagine how much kids test scores would improve if the parents were actively working with them on their homework and encouraging them to do well. For some they can't be there for their kids like that because they have to work or have something else that diverts their time that is important. For others they just don't give a shit which negatively impacts the kid in tons of ways.

[Grifman]

"We have to find any means necessary to get parents involved . . . "

. . . like keeping them from being involved because they're in jail!

Uh, maybe if they were involved they wouldn't be going to jail? Not that I approve of this, it's a dumb idea . . .

[Grifman]

This proposal seems to me to be biased against low income brackets.

Poor people don't care about their children? Maybe your comment reveals bias?

[Defiant]

Proposal by Detroit prosecutor.

Nanny state anyone?

Ironically, this seems designed to reduce the nanny state by trying to pressure parents to become more involved with their children so that the schools/government doesn't have to (though I guess it can be argued that government trying to get parents to take more responsibility is a nanny state action). Though it's a bit ike trying to fix your ipod with a hammer and chisel and blowtorch.