The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Parents should not be held responsible > Comments

Parents should not be held responsible : Comments

By Spencer Gear, published 22/9/2008

Parents should not be responsible or suffer a financial penalty for their child wagging school.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Rhian

I'm not necessarily in favour of financial penalties, I'd much prefer children to be willingly at school, and for school to be a worthwhile experience for all students. On the equity front, I agree penalties should apply equally if they are to be applied at all. A huge proportion of the population is on some sort of government handout, any of which could be forfeit, and anyone else could just be fined.

In the UK case, the law provided for the jailing of the mother for failing to fulfill her responsibility to send her child to school. Mum served her few days, during which the child realised, perhaps for the first time, the consequences of her behaviour. I'd call that a rude awakening, not blackmail.
Posted by Candide, Monday, 22 September 2008 3:43:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author makes no suggestion of an alternative incentive for parents to ensure their kids go to school. Fining welfare recipients is as I see it an extension of the social contract Howard was going on about. Don't expect welfare if you're not going to keep your end of the bargain.

But what other methods are there available to the government? Anyone?

Runner if only they'd teach more creationism in schools there'd be less truancy. Non-secular schools of course don't have this problem.
Not.

Point 2 of the article is a non-starter. It 'attacks' everyone in that situation. Point 3 is more emotive than logical - there will always be scenarios such as this (and can we cut this 'battler' guff? Anyone who hasn't won lotto or who doesn't have wealthy parents is a battler). Same for point 5. It isn't that "life's hard", it's a case of governing for the majority. I didn't like all my subjects nor all my teachers but never felt that a reason for going to the beach instead.

Fines are one way and the English example is a good one.

Spencer you're the expert. What would YOU do?
Posted by bennie, Monday, 22 September 2008 4:37:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everyone has overlooked the fact that the government is forcing children to attend school. It is, in effect, saying to parents "if you do not send your children to school we will (ultimately) send in the police with guns and force you to obey our rules".
Now I acknowledge that it is most desirable that children have as much education as they can comfortable absorb, but not at the point of a gun.
Posted by RobertG, Monday, 22 September 2008 7:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the title of this article needs a simple response

concerning "Parents should not be held responsible"

Our childrens education is duty we owe to our children and is recognised generally, as being in the best interest of the child.

Regarding "my 30 years of family counselling experience have taught me that there can be multiple reasons why children refuse to go to school. Some of these include...."

Anyone can list excuses, a counsellor, in my book, is supposed to be skilled at sifting out the excuses from the real reasons.



To anyone who thinks they are not responsible for their childrens education the following says it all


"People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation "


Margaret Thatcher, PM and Science & Education Minister in UK conservative governments.

You want educated children, you are obligated to send them to school.

If you dont want to have "educated children", I suggest you dont have kids in the first place.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 22 September 2008 8:31:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie,

What alternatives are there as incentives to encourage parents to have their children attend school? Another has raised the issue that the problem is compulsory education. I believe that compulsory education is good for the child, the family and the nation.

I conduct groups for parents of out-of-control teens (many of whom do not want to attend school), called, "Parenting with love and limits" (see: http://www.difficult.net/). This is a nurturance and consequences model developed by Dr. Scott Sells.

Parents try a number of creative strategies/consequences with children who are wagging school. One of these has a "shame" dimension. By prior arrangement with, say, the high school teacher(s), Mum or Dad goes to school and sits beside the child in the classroom while the parent is dressed in some outlandish attire such as Mum in her dressing gown with rollers in her hair.

It doesn't take long for a child to catch on that attending school voluntarily is better than this consequence.

However, in spite of the truanting, the parent(s) never give up loving and caring for the child. Parents may detest the wagging but giving up loving the child is not an option.

You will appreciate that with more parents working during the daytime, this is a challenging option. However, grandparents or friends have been known to take over the role in the classroom for the parent.

Sincerely, Spencer
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 22 September 2008 8:46:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge. Maggie is not well, why are you not there comforting your beloved?
Maggie and it appears yourself, are very Diuet Mon Droit, translated -"sod you I'm ok jack!"

There again you chose not to live in England...Strange!!
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 22 September 2008 10:21:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy