\doc\web\98\10\texpar.txt Date sent: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 23:50:36 -0500 From: "Richard G. Innes" <70224.434@compuserve.com> Subject: [education-consumers] RE: investigating the home of at risk students To: "ClearingHouse" Send reply to: "Richard G. Innes" <70224.434@compuserve.com> ===================================================================== Jimmy Kilpatric's post of the proposed Texas law (H.B 182) is pretty scary. Consider: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-10 (1) A risk that a student will drop out of school is 1-11 "attributable" to the student's home environment if: 1-12 (A) the student is or may be sexually, 1-13 physically, or psychologically abused at home; 1-14 (B) the student's parent lacks basic parenting 1-15 skills; or 1-16 (C) other facts exist that indicate the 1-17 student's home environment is not conducive to scholastic success. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Teachers are being charged with some awesome responsibilities and they are being given credit for training I doubt many have ever experienced. 2. How do you judge that something "may" occur? See lines 1-12 and 1-13. 3. What kind of training is needed to accurately determine if a parent lacks "basic parenting skills?" Where are these defined? 4. Lines 1-16 and 1-17 are an invitation to witch hunt. What makes a teacher's opinion valid on such a wide-ranging scope of possibilities? 5. If teachers have been spending time on training for these duties, I would expect the effort to have been considerable. It then becomes more obvious why recent studies and testing show an serious lack of skills knowledge in the teaching force. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-22 (b) Each teacher in prekindergarten through grade 8 shall: 1-23 (1) identify each student in the teacher's class who 1-24 is a student at risk of dropping out of school; and ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting that high school teachers have no such responsibility. I guess the kids are considered lost after 8th grade. I wonder why all the parent counseling, etc, isn't considered important once the student approaches the age when he can first legally drop out. Does this mean the state takes total responsibility for 9th graders and older, and parents are assumed to have no farther interest what-so-ever? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-11 (e) If the investigation indicates that the risk that the 2-12 student will drop out of school is attributable to the student's 2-13 home environment, the person conducting the investigation shall 2-14 notify the superintendent of the district. The superintendent 2-15 shall issue a written order instructing the student's parent or 2-16 parents to attend a counseling program designed to assist the 2-17 parent in improving the student's home environment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Texas will move out into some new territory with this one. They are going to turn the schools into social works agencies. Not only do I doubt that superintendents have even a shred of the necessary training, but I also question this obvious shift of authority away from the legal system into the hands of the bureaucracy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-17 The order must 2-18 direct the parent or parents to one or more identified counseling 2-19 programs that are provided by or in cooperation with a private or 2-20 public entity, including the Texas Department of Human Services, 2-21 the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, or the Texas 2-22 Workforce Commission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Again, this enables the superintendent to "direct" parent actions, without a court order. It also empowers the Texas Workforce Commission in this highly questionable activity. Wow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-3 (g) A parent who knowingly refuses to attend counseling 3-4 under this section in accordance with a final order under 3-5 Subsection (e) commits an offense. An offense under this 3-6 subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of: 3-7 (1) not more than $25 for the first offense; 3-8 (2) not less than $10 or more than $50 for a second 3-9 offense; or 3-10 (3) not less than $25 or more than $100 for a third or 3-11 subsequent offense. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Double Wow! Not only does the superintendent have directive authority over parents, but he has the power to level fines for non-compliance! Note no court appeal is listed here, anywhere. Does that mean ordinary due process is suspended? As much problem as I have with our legal system, it is clear this statute will create a far worse situation. Jimmy, own up. This must be a joke! Richard Innes ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Subscriptions & Archives: http://education-consumers.com or You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, click on the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or