South Carolina's back in the news in shining fashion (minimum wage, drugs, Clinton)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do. And while Lt Gov Bauer's choice of words may not have been "politically correct", he does have a very good point. There are way too many able body people who recieve gov't assistance and don't do a thing for it. It also hurts the people who really need it.
My question was to the OP, Davey. I was wondering why he cared what happens in SC.
No matter though, I did read the story earlier. I actually live in Fountain Inn, or at least, I have an FI zip code. For the record, as a decade long SC resident, I have not even heard of this guy, which is sad considering he is our Lt. Gov. Sanford, Wilson, and Graham definately hog the spotlight when it comes to the SC political scene.
In any case, what he said was not exactly PC, but he does have a good point. Mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients was one of my ideas. And before anyone calls me out on it, yes, I would support child services taking the kid(s) away from a parent who tests positive for drug use.. As for the PTA meetings, not so much. Never cared for them myself, but the guy does have a good point that the best schools always have high participation of parents in PTA.
No matter though, I did read the story earlier. I actually live in Fountain Inn, or at least, I have an FI zip code. For the record, as a decade long SC resident, I have not even heard of this guy, which is sad considering he is our Lt. Gov. Sanford, Wilson, and Graham definately hog the spotlight when it comes to the SC political scene.
In any case, what he said was not exactly PC, but he does have a good point. Mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients was one of my ideas. And before anyone calls me out on it, yes, I would support child services taking the kid(s) away from a parent who tests positive for drug use.. As for the PTA meetings, not so much. Never cared for them myself, but the guy does have a good point that the best schools always have high participation of parents in PTA.
The schools with the high participation of parents in the PTA also happen to be the wealthier districts.
Wealthier districts in general always tend to have better schools; could be a correlation ≠ causation issue with PTA participation rates..
I do agree more Parent involvement helps. However, you really need to look at the underlying reasons why some areas have less parent participation than others, and that is directly tied to poverty (and school performance is directly tied to poverty). Unless you address the issues of underlying poverty you aren't going to get more parent participation and aren't going to fix the problems surrounding the quality of education in the poor districts. I do agree with trying to take steps to increase parental involvement, however is a very backwards approach in doing so and fails to address the underlying poverty issue. Not to mention his comparisons are completely and utterly asinine.
Bauer's remarks came during a speech in which he said government should take away assistance if those receiving help didn't pass drug tests or attend parent-teacher conferences or PTA meetings if their children were receiving free and reduced-price lunches.
Or this?
Later in his speech, he said, “I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina,” adding, “You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch and I'll show you the worst test scores, folks. It's there, period. So how do you fix it? Well you say, ‘Look, if you receive goods or services from the government then you owe something back.'”............... “You go to a school where there's an active participation of parents and guess what? They have the highest test scores. So what do you do? You say, ‘Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don't attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits.' We're going to have to do things like that. We can't afford to keep just giving money away.”
This is the first I have ever heard of the guy, and while his analogy of feeding stray animals was off putting at best he really isn't saying anything that outlandish. Why not have people on government assistance be required to attend parent teacher conferences? Or if they are currently unemployed, why not make them 'volunteer' at their childs school? And yes - if a parent can't pass a drug test then that person has no right to parent. Drug addicts are bad parents, why is that news?
You're a pretty smart guy (gal?), so I can't figure out why you don't get this. You don't resolve the problem of parents with drug problems or other problems that cause or keep them from attending parent-teacher conferences by starving their children. You resolve the issue of parents with drug or neglect issues through one of the Social Services agencies (DCFS, DCF, whatever they're called in each state). If the children aren't being cared for properly, you remove them from the bad environment, you don't stop feeding them.
The other thing that neither you nor this Bauer yutz seem to understand, is that the lack of good nutrition has been directly linked to poor results in school. So the answer to children who are getting free or reduced price meals and aren't doing well in school, isn't to stop feeding them and make it worse.
You're a pretty smart guy (gal?), so I can't figure out why you don't get this. You don't resolve the problem of parents with drug problems or other problems that cause or keep them from attending parent-teacher conferences by starving their children. You resolve the issue of parents with drug or neglect issues through one of the Social Services agencies (DCFS, DCF, whatever they're called in each state). If the children aren't being cared for properly, you remove them from the bad environment, you don't stop feeding them.
The other thing that neither you nor this Bauer yutz seem to understand, is that the lack of good nutrition has been directly linked to poor results in school. So the answer to children who are getting free or reduced price meals and aren't doing well in school, isn't to stop feeding them and make it worse.
I have all the sympathy in the world for the working poor. That is why I specifically mentioned unemployed parents being forced to 'volunteer' at their childrens school. I never said starve the child, did I? Though to be fair, I didn't address that aspect of this 'yutz's' speech.
OK......lets talk starving the child --- I'd have to say that I am against that. I am not against taking that child away from parents who resolutely refuse to 'volunteer' at their childs school in return for services. That would indicate a complete and total lack of parental responsibility. After all - they would prefer their child starve then have to mop a floor or help a teacher make borders for her bulletin board.
(again, not talking of the working poor but the unemployed.)
I do agree more Parent involvement helps. However, you really need to look at the underlying reasons why some areas have less parent participation than others, and that is directly tied to poverty (and school performance is directly tied to poverty). Unless you address the issues of underlying poverty you aren't going to get more parent participation and aren't going to fix the problems surrounding the quality of education in the poor districts. I do agree with trying to take steps to increase parental involvement, however is a very backwards approach in doing so and fails to address the underlying poverty issue. Not to mention his comparisons are completely and utterly asinine.
Yet you cannot argue that children would be less likely to misbehave in school if their parent were at the school volunteering? Even if only on a weekly or monthly basis? Plus, a parent may understand better what is going on at the school and what is expected of their child if they have a direct relationship with the teachers, paras and principle.
Will it solve all the problems? No. But will it benefit those parents who do want their children to do well but don't really have an idea on how to help their child accomplish that goal? Absolutely.
Yet you cannot argue that children would be less likely to misbehave in school if their parent were at the school volunteering? Even if only on a weekly or monthly basis? Plus, a parent may understand better what is going on at the school and what is expected of their child if they have a direct relationship with the teachers, paras and principle.
Will it solve all the problems? No. But will it benefit those parents who do want their children to do well but don't really have an idea on how to help their child accomplish that goal? Absolutely.
Should we do more to try and increase parental interaction with schools? Absolutely, but forcing it, and taking important things away from the kids if the parents don't or can't comply is not the way to go about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
