Saturday, February 17, 2007

The CCISD Principals and the Attendance Officers lay and wait for the magic number to file against the student and the parent to initiate prosecution

Saturday, February 17, 2007

The CCISD Principals and the Attendance Officers lay and wait for the magic number to file against the student and the parent to initiate prosecution

GRusling - 01:11pm Feb 11, 2007 Central (#1 of 13)  Mark Reply
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke

    As long as we're questioning public schooling, we should question whether there really is an abstraction called "the public" at all, except in the ominous calculations of social engineers. As a boy from the banks of the Monongahela River in western Pennsylvania, I find the term insulting, a cartoon of social reality. If an institution that robs people of their right to self-determination can call itself "public", if being "public" means it can turn families into agents of the state, making parents spy on and harass their sons and daughters because a schoolteacher tells them to; if the state can steal your home because you can't pay its "public" school taxes, and state courts can break up your family if you refuse to allow the state to tell your children what to think - then the word public is a label for garbage and for people who allow themselves to be treated like slaves.
John Taylor Gatto

GRusling - 01:29pm Feb 11, 2007 Central (#2 of 13)  Mark Reply
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke

Once called "Head Start" in Texas, what good is kindergarten (and now pre-k) for a child from a healthy family who speaks fluent English? It doesn't teach them to socialize, it teaches them the bad habits of other small children they're forced into close, daily contact with. It teaches them to listen to their "Teacher" and transport his or her commands to their parents. It teaches them that the "Teacher" is the person best qualified to answer all their questions while their parents are usually wrong, even about what is and isn't important in their lives, like family, heritage and individual accomplishment. What good is memorizing "facts" which are already written in reference books, available to anyone with a desire to discover them? If the "fact" is of some practical use a person might want to remember it, but in the abstract world of study for the sake of uniformity and conformity, memorizing it is nothing but training in doing what you're told and has nothing at all to do with education.


GRusling - 02:04pm Feb 11, 2007 Central (#3 of 13)  Mark Reply
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke

The myth that "schooling" has some relationship to education is only that, a myth! To be educated requires the ability to think independently, not simply to recite what someone else has already discovered, a "pre-thought thought." No allowance is made in our Public Schools for independent thought, much less action. There simply isn't time and it disrupts the schedule.

What is the purpose of true education? As an exercise for the young it would teach them to inquire into the unknown. That would require them to follow "the road less traveled" since goldmines are never discovered in the middle of a well-worn track! Simple "knowledge" is much better learned from the necessity to do a certain thing, then just learning how.

What is the purpose of sorting children by age in our public schools? It can't be "education" because how much can one 5 year old learn from another 5 year old? Children, like adults, learn a lot more from their peers than from any instructor. Do you really want your son or daughter to learn anything from that mean little brat down the street? When you send them to school with him or her, locking them in a closed environment with them day after day, rest assured that is what will happen!

Have you ever watched an inquisitive child? If you have you'll find them following their older siblings, never those of the same age or younger, always underfoot of their parents, trying to understand what those they admire and look up to are doing. They're "learning," all by themselves at their own pace, in their own time, when their curiosity prompts them to learn about and try to understand some particular activity. Their minds are being stimulated to discover and that almost never happens in "school" because they're not allowed to stray from the "prescribed course" long enough to follow their instincts and learn about whatever has caught their attention at the moment.


Jaime Kenedeno - 04:56pm Feb 14, 2007 Central (#4 of 13)  Mark Delete MessageReply

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

The Parent requires the child to attend school if the child is present at beginning of the day!

TEXAS EDUCATION CODE Sec. 25.094. FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL

The fallacy of this law is that it does not differentiate between a student that is absent and a student that is skipping or tardy.

An absent student is one who does not arrive at school in the morning and is absent for the WHOLE Day. The student was never on campus. The Parent is responsible for the student getting to school (requiring the student to attend school). If the student does not get to school it is the Parent’s responsibility not necessarily the Parent’s fault. There are circumstances where the student will walk in the front door and out the back door without attending a single class. This is where the attendance officers need to improve their due diligence like the old days.

Once the student is counted present in the morning; the Parent has required the student (child) to attend school. Once the student is verified in attendance at the beginning of the school day the student is in the custody of the School.

If the student is tardy or skips class (on campus or off campus) this happens on the watch of the school. The Parent if informed should cooperate and communicate with the School Counselors Administrators and the Attendance Officer to correct the behavior. The Security and Attendance officer should take notice and tighten the belt. This is a security issue as well; there is no excuse for students coming and going outside of the lunch period and it is imperative that attendance irregularities be dealt with within 24 hours. This is easily done with our modern technology.

Instead, what we are seeing is the Attendance Officers documenting the absences as they accumulate and filing on the Parent and student when the number of absences are achieved.

Another fallacy resides in the Parental notification outreach process. There are parts of the law that dic


Jaime Kenedeno - 04:58pm Feb 14, 2007 Central (#5 of 13)  Mark Delete MessageReply

dictate certain steps be taken,

A warning is issued as required by Section 25.095(a)

25.095(a) refers to the Issuance of student handbook at the beginning of the school year that informs the reader of the Non Attendance law and the student's parent is subject to prosecution under Section 25.093 and the student is subject to prosecution under Section 25.094 if the student is absent from school on 10 or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year or on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period.

(b) A school district shall notify a student's parent if the student has been absent from school, without excuse under Section 25.087, on three days or parts of days within a four-week period. The notice must:

(1) inform the parent that:

(A) it is the parent's duty to monitor the student's school attendance and require the student to attend school; and

(B) the parent is subject to prosecution under Section 25.093; and

(2) request a conference between school officials and the parent to discuss the absences.

But if these steps required (by the very same law) for the School under 25.095 (a) or (b) are disregarded by the School this is not a defense to the prosecution.

(c) The fact that a parent did not receive a notice under Subsection (a) or (b) does not create a defense to prosecution under Section 25.093 or 25.094.

So the Parent is prosecuted regardless of whether the rules applying to the school responsibilities are followed or not.

The School has no responsibility.

http://ccisd-kenedeno-edu.blogspot.com/2007/02/parent-requires-child-to-attend-school.html


dannoynted1 - 10:07pm Feb 14, 2007 Central (#6 of 13)  Mark Reply

We talked to a "truancy officer" today and he said he would be happy to document and testify to the criminal hook this law has/is detrimental to the students at CCISD..."in five years when i retire."

The selective prosecution is done selective and on the directives of the principal of the school.

since there is no "superintendent"there is no boss, so these principals operate as a fiefdom unto themselves.

well i guess the "consultants at the "waste of money" "waters group' teaches the "pro business" how to become a specialist in "working" the education code of texas to be subjective in their "waste of water group"


GRusling - 09:38am Feb 16, 2007 Central (#7 of 13)  Mark Reply
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke

I appreciate that there are many ways and theories for "working the system" but the fact is, the system itself is a failure if it's true intent is to educate children. The very real question is, is that what it was designed to do?

Our form of compulsory schooling was first initiated here (in America) in the State of Massachusetts from the 1830's till the 1880's. It was resisted, sometimes with guns, by an estimated 80 percent of the Massachusetts population. A senator's office contended not too long ago that prior to compulsory government schooling the literacy rate in Massachusetts was 98 percent, but after it the figure never again reached above 91 percent.

The "system" was imported, wholesale, from Prussia! That was accomplished in the 19th century so the question is, what are our schools really designed to accomplish? What was this "Prussian" system designed to do?

James Bryant Conant - president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century, directs the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis's 1918 book, "Principles of Secondary Education."


GRusling - 09:40am Feb 16, 2007 Central (#8 of 13)  Mark Reply
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the growing democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever re-integrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose - the actual purpose - of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals of reading, writing and arithmetic:


GRusling - 09:41am Feb 16, 2007 Central (#9 of 13)  Mark Reply
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke

1. The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2. The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3. The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.

4. The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5. The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.


GRusling - 09:43am Feb 16, 2007 Central (#10 of 13)  Mark Reply
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke

6. The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

The preceeding are the words of Alexander Inglis, not myself. I lifted them wholesale from his work.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, certainly understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating, not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force, but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific, difficult tasks."


GRusling - 09:45am Feb 16, 2007 Central (#11 of 13)  Mark Reply
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke

And so, we find ourselves today, caught in a net of irrelevance because our early "training" demands it. Our public schools, of which almost all of us are a product are exactly that, "training" and not education at all. Just as the Captains of Industry in the 19th and early 20th century expected, we sort ourselves according to the categories they put in place and by the time anyone realizes what has occurred they're just like me, old, irrelevant and impotent to correct the problem.

I give you a quote from John Taylor Gatto, New York State and New York City "Teacher of the Year" (on more than one occasion), author of "The Underground History of American Education" which gave me my first insight into the "real" problem in our public schools:

    "I taught for thirty years in some of the worst schools in Manhattan, and in some of the best, and during that time I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world, and if you asked the kids, as I often did, why they felt so bored, they always gave the same answers: They said the work was stupid, that it made no sense, that they already knew it. They said they wanted to be doing something real, not just sitting around. They said teachers didn't seem to know much about their subjects and clearly weren't interested in learning more. And the kids were right: their teachers were every bit as bored as they were."
    "Boredom is the common condition of schoolteachers, and anyone who has spent time in a teachers' lounge can vouch for the low energy, the whining, the dispirited attitudes, to be found there. When asked why they feel bored, the teachers tend to blame the kids, as you might expect. Who wouldn't get bored teaching students who are rude and interested only in grades? If even that. Of course, teachers are themselves products of the same twelve-year compulsory school programs that so thoroughly bore their students, and as school personnel they are trapped inside structures even more rigid than those


GRusling - 09:46am Feb 16, 2007 Central (#12 of 13)  Mark Reply
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." --John Locke

    even more rigid than those imposed upon the children. Who, then, is to blame?"
Are we unable to free ourselves from the cycle of "non-education" that surrounds us???

Jaime Kenedeno - 03:53am Feb 17, 2007 Central (#13 of 13)  Mark Edit MessageDelete MessageReply

I agree that the teachers are placed in hard to win but precarious position. In the case with the compulsory attendance laws and ongoing legislation, the teachers only document the daily attendance of the students for each class block or period. It is a simple roster sheet that the teacher bubbles in if the student is absent or tardy. The roster is collected 5 or 10 minutes after the bell rings and the period begins. They are fed into a scan tron type of machine and immediately record and spit out the data. It is a simple task for the computer to perform analysis for irregularities such as students who were in attendance for the first two or three classes and now they are absent in 4th and 5th but back for 6th etc etc......

The issue is not addressed but it is documented and tallied up for the prosecution for non attendance. Where is the attendance officer and the attendance staff, the administrators and most of all the security?

Yet, the parent is blamed for not requiring the child to attend. The child is testing the boundaries and there is no redirection so the behavior continues as the Principals and the Attendance Officers lay and wait for the magic number to file against the student and the parent to initiate prosecution for not complying with the compulsory attendance law. It is generation of extra revenue for the district and it draws praise approval and rewards to the money makers who tally the absences and do nothing the intercede. It is like a speed trap but worse.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

the primary duty of prosecuting attorney's.... not to convict, but to see that justice is done.


CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


CHAPTER 2. GENERAL DUTIES OF OFFICERS



Art. 2.01. [25] [30] [31] DUTIES OF DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS. Each district attorney shall represent the State in all
criminal cases in the district courts of his district and in appeals
therefrom, except in cases where he has been, before his election,
employed adversely. When any criminal proceeding is had before an
examining court in his district or before a judge upon habeas
corpus, and he is notified of the same, and is at the time within his
district, he shall represent the State therein, unless prevented by
other official duties. It shall be the primary duty of all
prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to
convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress
facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of
the accused.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Art. 2.03. [27] [33] [34] NEGLECT OF DUTY. (a) It shall be
the duty of the attorney representing the State to present by
information to the court having jurisdiction, any officer for
neglect or failure of any duty enjoined upon such officer, when such
neglect or failure can be presented by information, whenever it
shall come to the knowledge of said attorney that there has been a
neglect or failure of duty upon the part of said officer; and he
shall bring to the notice of the grand jury any act of violation of
law or neglect or failure of duty upon the part of any officer, when
such violation, neglect or failure is not presented by information,
and whenever the same may come to his knowledge.
(b) It is the duty of the trial court, the attorney
representing the accused, the attorney representing the state and
all peace officers to so conduct themselves as to insure a fair
trial for both the state and the defendant, not impair the
presumption of innocence, and at the same time afford the public the
benefits of a free press.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Amended by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1733, ch. 659, Sec. 3, eff. Aug.
28, 1967.


Art. 2.04. [28] [34] [35] SHALL DRAW COMPLAINTS. Upon
complaint being made before a district or county attorney that an
offense has been committed in his district or county, he shall
reduce the complaint to writing and cause the same to be signed and
sworn to by the complainant, and it shall be duly attested by said
attorney.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.


Art. 2.05. [29] [35] [36] WHEN COMPLAINT IS MADE. If the
offense be a misdemeanor, the attorney shall forthwith prepare an
information based upon such complaint and file the same in the court
having jurisdiction; provided, that in counties having no county
attorney, misdemeanor cases may be tried upon complaint alone,
without an information, provided, however, in counties having one
or more criminal district courts an information must be filed in
each misdemeanor case. If the offense be a felony, he shall
forthwith file the complaint with a magistrate of the county.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.


Art. 2.06. [30] [36] [37] MAY ADMINISTER OATHS. For the
purpose mentioned in the two preceding Articles, district and
county attorneys are authorized to administer oaths.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.


Art. 2.07. [31] [38] [39] ATTORNEY PRO TEM. (a) Whenever an
attorney for the state is disqualified to act in any case or
proceeding, is absent from the county or district, or is otherwise
unable to perform the duties of his office, or in any instance where
there is no attorney for the state, the judge of the court in which
he represents the state may appoint any competent attorney to
perform the duties of the office during the absence or
disqualification of the attorney for the state.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, if the
appointed attorney is also an attorney for the state, the duties of
the appointed office are additional duties of his present office,
and he is not entitled to additional compensation. Nothing herein
shall prevent a commissioners court of a county from contracting
with another commissioners court to pay expenses and reimburse
compensation paid by a county to an attorney for the state who is
appointed to perform additional duties.
(b-1) An attorney for the state who is not disqualified to
act may request the court to permit him to recuse himself in a case
for good cause and upon approval by the court is disqualified.
(c) If the appointed attorney is not an attorney for the
state, he is qualified to perform the duties of the office for the
period of absence or disqualification of the attorney for the state
on filing an oath with the clerk of the court. He shall receive
compensation in the same amount and manner as an attorney appointed
to represent an indigent person.
(d) In this article, "attorney for the state" means a county
attorney, a district attorney, or a criminal district attorney.
(e) In Subsections (b) and (c) of this article, "attorney
for the state" includes an assistant attorney general.
(f) In Subsection (a) of this article, "competent attorney"
includes an assistant attorney general.
(g) An attorney appointed under Subsection (a) of this
article to perform the duties of the office of an attorney for the
state in a justice or municipal court may be paid a reasonable fee
for performing those duties.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Amended by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1733, ch. 659, Sec. 4, eff. Aug.
28, 1967; Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 356, ch. 154, Sec. 1, eff. May
23, 1973; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 918, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 31, 1987;
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 785, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts
1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1545, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


Art. 2.08. [32] [40] [41] DISQUALIFIED. District and county
attorneys shall not be of counsel adversely to the State in any
case, in any court, nor shall they, after they cease to be such
officers, be of counsel adversely to the State in any case in which
they have been of counsel for the State.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.


Art. 2.09. WHO ARE MAGISTRATES. Each of the following
officers is a magistrate within the meaning of this Code: The
justices of the Supreme Court, the judges of the Court of Criminal
Appeals, the justices of the Courts of Appeals, the judges of the
District Court, the magistrates appointed by the judges of the
district courts of Bexar County, Dallas County, or Tarrant County
that give preference to criminal cases, the criminal law hearing
officers for Harris County appointed under Subchapter L, Chapter
54, Government Code, the criminal law hearing officers for Cameron
County appointed under Subchapter BB, Chapter 54, Government Code,
the magistrates appointed by the judges of the district courts of
Lubbock County, Nolan County, or Webb County, the magistrates
appointed by the judges of the criminal district courts of Dallas
County or Tarrant County, the masters appointed by the judges of the
district courts and the county courts at law that give preference to
criminal cases in Jefferson County, the magistrates appointed by
the judges of the district courts and the statutory county courts of
Brazos County or Williamson County, the magistrates appointed by
the judges of the district courts and statutory county courts that
give preference to criminal cases in Travis County, the county
judges, the judges of the county courts at law, judges of the county
criminal courts, the judges of statutory probate courts, the
associate judges appointed by the judges of the statutory probate
courts under Subchapter G, Chapter 54, Government Code, the
justices of the peace, and the mayors and recorders and the judges
of the municipal courts of incorporated cities or towns.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 801, ch. 291, Sec. 100, eff.
Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 883, ch. 204, Sec. 1, eff.
Aug. 29, 1983; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 25, Sec. 2, eff. Aug. 28,
1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 79, Sec. 1, eff. May 15, 1989; Acts
1989, 71st Leg., ch. 916, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1989,
71st Leg., ch. 1068, Sec. 2, eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd
Leg., ch. 16, Sec. 4.01, eff. Aug. 26, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg.,
ch. 224, Sec. 2, eff. Aug. 30, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 413,
Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 468, Sec. 1,
eff. June 9, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 577, Sec. 2, eff. Aug.
30, 1993; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 586, Sec. 2, eff. June 18, 1999;
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1503, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts
2003, 78th Leg., ch. 979, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003,
78th Leg., ch. 1066, Sec. 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 109, Sec. 2, eff. May 20, 2005;
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 767, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2005; Acts
2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1331, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.


Art. 2.10. [34] [42] [43] DUTY OF MAGISTRATES. It is the
duty of every magistrate to preserve the peace within his
jurisdiction by the use of all lawful means; to issue all process
intended to aid in preventing and suppressing crime; to cause the
arrest of offenders by the use of lawful means in order that they
may be brought to punishment.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.


Art. 2.11. [35] [62] [63] EXAMINING COURT. When the
magistrate sits for the purpose of inquiring into a criminal
accusation against any person, this is called an examining court.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.


Art. 2.12. WHO ARE PEACE OFFICERS. The following are peace
officers:
(1) sheriffs, their deputies, and those reserve deputies
who hold a permanent peace officer license issued under Chapter
1701, Occupations Code;
(2) constables, deputy constables, and those reserve deputy
constables who hold a permanent peace officer license issued under
Chapter 1701, Occupations Code;
(3) marshals or police officers of an incorporated city,
town, or village, and those reserve municipal police officers who
hold a permanent peace officer license issued under Chapter 1701,
Occupations Code;
(4) rangers and officers commissioned by the Public Safety
Commission and the Director of the Department of Public Safety;
(5) investigators of the district attorneys', criminal
district attorneys', and county attorneys' offices;
(6) law enforcement agents of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage
Commission;
(7) each member of an arson investigating unit commissioned
by a city, a county, or the state;
(8) officers commissioned under Section 37.081, Education
Code, or Subchapter E, Chapter 51, Education Code;
(9) officers commissioned by the General Services
Commission;
(10) law enforcement officers commissioned by the Parks and
Wildlife Commission;
(11) airport police officers commissioned by a city with a
population of more than 1.18 million that operates an airport that
serves commercial air carriers;
(12) airport security personnel commissioned as peace
officers by the governing body of any political subdivision of this
state, other than a city described by Subdivision (11), that
operates an airport that serves commercial air carriers;
(13) municipal park and recreational patrolmen and security
officers;
(14) security officers and investigators commissioned as
peace officers by the comptroller;
(15) officers commissioned by a water control and
improvement district under Section 49.216, Water Code;
(16) officers commissioned by a board of trustees under
Chapter 54, Transportation Code;
(17) investigators commissioned by the Texas State Board of
Medical Examiners;
(18) officers commissioned by the board of managers of the
Dallas County Hospital District, the Tarrant County Hospital
District, or the Bexar County Hospital District under Section
281.057, Health and Safety Code;
(19) county park rangers commissioned under Subchapter E,
Chapter 351, Local Government Code;
(20) investigators employed by the Texas Racing Commission;
(21) officers commissioned under Chapter 554, Occupations
Code;
(22) officers commissioned by the governing body of a
metropolitan rapid transit authority under Section 451.108,
Transportation Code, or by a regional transportation authority
under Section 452.110, Transportation Code;
(23) investigators commissioned by the attorney general
under Section 402.009, Government Code;
(24) security officers and investigators commissioned as
peace officers under Chapter 466, Government Code;
(25) an officer employed by the Texas

Justice of the Peace Courts' Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings "do not include confinement"

Dear State Representative Solomon P Ortiz Jr.,

As South Texas and HD #33 remain in anticipation of your response to the email communication regarding Texas Education Code 25.093 specifically and the Texas Education Code 25, another issue has been brought to my attention regarding the JP Courts Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings that are punishable by fine only

This is the preface of the JP Court illustrated below in the image entitled Court Structure of Texas according to The Official Website of Texas Courts

Court Structure of Texas


And also according to the The Handbook of Texas Online

Justice of the Peace Courts have jurisdiction over criminal offenses that are
punishable by fine only, and over civil cases in which the amount in
controversy is small (not more than $5,000 in 1995).


CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS


Art. 1.051. RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL.

(c)  An indigent defendant is entitled to have an attorney
appointed to represent him in any adversary judicial proceeding
that may result in punishment by confinement and in any other
criminal proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of
justice require representation.
Except as otherwise provided by
this subsection, if an indigent defendant is entitled to and
requests appointed counsel and if adversarial judicial proceedings
have been initiated against the defendant, a court or the courts'
designee authorized under Article 26.04 to appoint counsel for
indigent defendants in the county shall appoint counsel as soon as
possible, but not later than the end of the third working day after
the date on which the court or the courts' designee receives the
defendant's request for appointment of counsel. In a county with a
population of 250,000 or more, the court or the courts' designee
shall appoint counsel as required by this subsection as soon as
possible, but not later than the end of the first working day after
the date on which the court or the courts' designee receives the
defendant's request for appointment of counsel.


Please note the limitation operatives under Art. 4.11
JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE (JP) COURTS.

"not consisting of confinement or imprisonment"

and

"do not include confinement"


CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


CHAPTER 4. COURTS AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION


Art. 4.11. [60] [106] [96] JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE
COURTS. (a) Justices of the peace shall have original jurisdiction
in criminal cases:
(1) punishable by fine only or punishable by:
(A) a fine; and
(B) as authorized by statute, a sanction not consisting of
confinement or imprisonment; or
(2) arising under Chapter 106, Alcoholic Beverage Code,
that do not include confinement as an authorized sanction.
(b) The fact that a conviction in a justice court has as a
consequence the imposition of a penalty or sanction by an agency or
entity other than the court, such as a denial, suspension, or
revocation of a privilege, does not affect the original
jurisdiction of the justice court.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 108, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1,
1991; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 449, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 533, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997,
75th Leg., ch. 1013, Sec. 38, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


However, the Justice Courts are punishing by confinement.

The Justice Courts are not appointing Attorneys for indigent defendants involved in adversarial judicial proceedings that are resulting in punishment by confinement.

In Nueces County, the Justice of the Peace Judges are not licensed
attorneys nor is the Justice Court a Court of Record Court.

A Court of Record is defined as:

  • A court in which the proceedings are recorded, transcribed, and maintained as permanent records.
    brandonlclark.com/glossary.html
  • A court whose acts and proceedings are recorded and preserved.
    www.courts.mo.gov/osca/index.nsf/0/8b69295b674dde2186256e15004ea27f
  • In common law jurisdictions, a court of record is a court that keeps permanent records of its proceedings. Judgments of a trial court of record are normally subject to appellate review. In many jurisdictions, all courts are courts of record. In many jurisdictions, courts that have the power to fine or imprison must be courts of record.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_record

  • There is no recourse.

    There is no accountability.

    One other issue is the counting of a certain number of tardies as an absence and the absence is counted towards a truancy absence. There is not a provision for this illegal manipulation so as to prosecute. This prosecution under 25.093 and 25.094 can be easily proven if necessary.

    To quote a Nueces County District Judge, "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" as our HD #33 Representative we ask for emergency intervention and reform of this bad law. This is an appeal to you from South Texas. Do we really need to collect letters and signatures for our South Texas Delegation to take immediate action?

    Respectfully,

    Anton S Haley

    Monday, February 12, 2007

    CCISD educators or "pro business carpetbaggers" ?

    In Response to the article at the below link written by Jaime Kenedeno entitled "Empowering Our Families" in response to the Newscast / Article by KRISTV's Bart Bedsole

    Wednesday, January 31, 2007

    "Empowering Our Families": "The bottom line is gangs are still operating in our community". Respect Our Family. Respect innocent Children, Brothers,..


    Re(1): Trustees ............aint

    Posted on February 1, 2007 at 05:52:41 AM by dannoynted1

    it is weird, i was talking to a pal of mine and she was pissed @ breaking down yesterday

    the weather was bad...and it was at the time to pick up the kids from school.
    "
    she is always prompt picking up the kids, she called and informed the elementary school in the "hood" not on the posh side of town and informed them of the problem.

    well the asst principal(female) informed the 7 year old she was going to call CPS and the police were going to make her go with them since her mother was not going to pick her up.

    Even though the asst. principal knew, the mother called, had informed her of the circumstances by cell phone, which thank God she had.
    .....But instead of help from our local CCISD "fiefdom" of overpaid administration responsible by agreement are (they not paid) and EMPLOYED for it? But yet exude the mentality(i have power and your people don't)to the extent to expunge families, supply a go of destruction which of course is done to render these folks obsolete, a goal that is explicit and impart by assuming "kin" as if they are worthless~without an "official leader" @ CCISD to answer to they have no boss. That seems to permeate from these rogue "big man syndrome sufferers"

    Including leader MR vic Rothschild/billy Clark along with their new nilly "Carol Scott" ms. kilo?

    i guess these people could care less about the bottom line where we are concerned ~ but only and especially their own self dealing from the bottom of the deck!(thanks molly)


    "Pro Business" tells us the family's they are using n us and our kids they are not here for our children, or their education, they are here for the check and themselves in a position to help their ilk and their self proclaimed agenda labeled "Pro Business" a position available now they are in a "trusty" that has NOTHING to do with education............ Now who is empowered by control of "Pro Business" stance?

    The CCISD educators or "pro business carpetbaggers"

    oh by the


    I for one am sick of "process" without "policy" but yet collects the money as they are "educating" but truly masquerading as educators!

    oh and it is illegal to lock up a child for a "wanton selective" alleging a child, while @ school who is in violation and then decide among who of those worthy of prosecution.

    so if you prosecute one child for the same "crime" why is it done selectively?

    A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO......

    When i informed a certain "middle school principal" that her alone was ENTRUSTED/OBLIGATED,ACCOUNTABLE AS she is responsible for what happens on her campus.....
    the idiot principal had the gall to state "no ma'am"..."no ma'am"

    i asked "your not
    responsible"?

    again i was told "no ma'am"..."no ma'am"

    well i could not beleive i was sending my child to a school where the highest paid employee there and had the title of principal yet impotent...


    needless to say she no longer is not in charge of being (not)responsible for any of our children's lives here nor works @CCISD!

    But if the Principal ain't in charge and their boss is some crap "process" idiots who waste money on "welder leshin" colleen mchughs" to waste money acting like the money is being well spent when actually the goal is to waste our time, our money, and our kids time and their educational opportunities


    i say we prosecute them for "tardies" just like they do to our children they for some reason is a fly on the wall instead of being educated but yet the district collects that check as if they were in class" talk about fraud and tampering with government documents/records!

    not to mention:
    1. dereliction of duty
    2. facilitating tardies as a criminal act. 3. an audit ~ if they are being paid to educate and yet they charge students and parents i bet this type of contractual
    the state gives their goodhair and pal's an extra incentive to double their money when they succeed in the "education of no child left behind bars via incarceration.

    how many kids drop out rather than have to go through the criminalization they can look forward to thanks to the "policy and process" why are these principals getting paid?

    if they can't stop a kid from being tardy or/and catch him skipping or enforce the policy of "go to class"then Heaven help..... they are useless to us if they will not enforce their well paid job as such are ultimately responsible for "policy and education" at their repective venues i guess they will for sure unable to stop a columbine either ?

    "pro business" by wasting our money and time and our students for the last 2 years shows what their concentation is and it is ~not on education ~

    but there is a future when you get money through standardized long term methods of incarceration
    and i for one see a pattern of the same old "process" of waste that we have seen this past 2 years!

    hail~they did not drop out.......technically you can not be labeled a drop out if you are locked-up!?!

    I for one, am sick of the waste on the Consultants/Attorneys sitting in One Shoreline Plaza like Colleen Tandy Mchugh's and the Carol Scott's and the Bill Clark's (and his predecessor)who care about their "business" end instead of their "elected position"!


    And i am being nice!

    Remember the last thing the "trustees" want is a boss!

    that is why they expelled all those transfer students only for the "south side schools"

    and all this has happened courtesy of "trustees" they make policy.


    well i am "not impressed" to borrow a phrase form that principal who ain't responsible for what happens on her campus.

    these trustees need a boss and if ain't the one they want then we will gladly "substitute".

    ala a "minuteman"!


    except we know what our family and children mean to us....do they?

    "We Know. We're from Here!"

    that ad is super bowl worthy. some people have shown they don't know "We Know. We're from Here!"
    but do not deserve to do business with those folks whose "word is more binding than any contract(k)"

    now that's watt I'M talking 'bout!


    Re(2): Trustees ............aint
    Posted on February 3, 2007 at 08:36:18 AM by dannoynted1

    i wonder what pro will be as "deserving of an education in "waste management" conducted by these worthless billy bob clarks who are 2 years behind a policy that is known to all us raised in Texas on that unwritten code of conduct.....

    be a straight shooter and a SQUARE dealer.......

    yup their ability to sell out our kids for the past 2 years while they troll for the best "pro-business contract" that will be more binding for their future in the "pro-business" newly coined "pro-business industry" needs to go bushs uck off the private sector part of their not from here "culture club" where we come from ...... no body gets a golf course for free let alone suggesting it will happen in 2 years.....


    I will take "Quid Pro Quo " for a thousand Alex.......


    Alex: "and it is the daily........"





    can you hear me now?

    or do we got to get a little louder?



    Re(3): Trustees ............aint
    Posted on February 3, 2007 at 09:05:38 AM by dannoynted1

    AYE boy'o.......watt killa brew is your flavor?

    they hard stuf or the kine that is sweet but always hurts u? or the kine that keeps u goin?

    yup them irish eyes' r a smilin'



    Re(3): Trustees ............aint
    Posted on February 6, 2007 at 06:01:11 AM by d1

    Re(2): CCISD Trustees ............ain't doing their JOB!
    Posted on February 3, 2007 at 08:36:18 AM by dannoynted1

    i wonder who/what pro will be as "deserving of an education in "waste management" conducted by these worthless billy bob clarks @CCISD who are 2 years behind a policy that is known to all us raised in Texas on that unwritten code of conduct.....

    be a straight shooter and a SQUARE dealer.......

    yup their ability to sell out our kids@ CCISD for the past 2 years while they troll for the best "pro-business contract" that will be more binding for their future in the "pro-business" newly coined "pro-business industry" wasting the needs of students to be educated and more "comity" in their use of the La Ley. Them folks need to go sushs buck off the private sector part of their maroon wearing jacket rich alumni, not those taxpaying public sector taxpayers from here. Yall private sector "culture club" brain drain all of us and think we are stupid because of where we come from ...... no body gets a golf course for free let alone suggesting it will happen in 2 years.....

    I will take "Quid Pro Quo " for a thousand Alex.......

    Alex: "and it is the daily........"

    can you hear me now?

    or do we got to get a little louder?

    I guess you guys don't get it. How are we going to afford to go there if CCISD students and their education is nothing to those that are trying to steal/for free/provide a consolation gift to the private "real estate" for who Lame Duck Mark Scott was supposed to develop?

    I know he is a main player in this "gift" for who? If you happen to owe on a student loan and you're fortunate enough to get the cash to try and finish up your degree, and go 'ole boy TAMU-CC still does/will not want/nor admit you enrollment.

    Guess they ain't hurting for the money........nor the preferred clientèle....unless they.....

    Are they planning to build a law school?

    free money maker for an upscale neighborhood ? And tax exempt to boot?

    The way students @ TAMU-CC/CCISD care on totally different "wavelengths"!

    We ain't giving away free land when our students@ CCISD have a 1 in 7 chance of even hoping to get there.....thanks to the weeds they see(prosecuted poor "selected")as needing to be pulled,

    so they have more time for their own brand of seeds.

    OH AND LET US NOT 4GET A LITTLE ID BIT OF TRIVIA CONCERNING THE "INTERLIBRARY LOAN" REQUESTED @TAMUK.....FOR A CERTAIN "SERPENT IN THE GARDEN" ARTICLE. I GOT A COPY FROM THERE, COPIED IT AND TURNED OVER TO THE ATTORNEY FOR A FINDERS FEE OF 25K. I FOUND IT @ TAMUK. PAID & GAVE HIM MY ONLY COPY.
    THEN WHEN I DID NOT GET PAID, I WENT BACK TO JERNIGAN LIBRARY TO GET ANOTHER COPY AND I WAS TOLD TAMUK NO LONGER CARRIED THE "HOUSTON CHRONICLE"
    SO I REQUESTED AN INTERLIBRARY LOAN WHICH I WAS TOLD ANY OF TEXAS' A&M'S WOULD PROVIDE.

    WELL NOT ONE A&M HAD THIS ARTICLE AND NO LONGER CARRIED THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE. THIS WAS 1996-1997.

    THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED SUNDAY, JANUARY 14, 1996, BY JAMES PINKERTON WAS THE FRONT PAGE HEADLINE.

    IT WAS AN EDUCATION IN THE POLITICAL/SOCIAL/ECONOMIC PARADIGM REGARDING PRIVATE/PUBLIC SECTOR.

    Re(4): Trustees ............aint
    Posted on February 7, 2007 at 03:43:19 AM by dannoynted1

    does A&m's still "no longer carry a major newspaper?

    talk about censorship.....

    why only that paper?

    oh and you know who you are .....your "piper has been calling for you to join him."



    Thursday, February 08, 2007

    "as required by law" Where is this "as required by law" defined for the parent?

    25.093. PARENT CONTRIBUTING TO NONATTENDANCE.
    (a) If a warning is issued as required by
    Section 25.095(a), the parent with criminal
    negligence fails to require the child to
    attend school as
    required by law, and the
    child has absences for the amount of time
    specified under Section 25.094, the parent
    commits an offense.


    Definitions of require on the Web:

  • necessitate: require as useful, just, or proper; "It takes nerve to do what she did"; "success usually requires hard work"; "This job asks a lot of patience and skill"; "This position demands a lot of personal sacrifice"; "This dinner calls for a spectacular dessert"; "This intervention does not postulate a patient's consent"
  • ask: consider obligatory; request and expect; "We require our secretary to be on time"; "Aren't we asking too much of these children?"; "I expect my students to arrive in time for their lessons"
  • command: make someone do something
  • want: have need of; "This piano wants the attention of a competent tuner"




  • Notice the word REQUIRE appears three times in the same sentence.


    If a warning is issued as required by
    Section 25.095(a)
    Does the State commit Criminal negligence if the School District does not issue the warning as required by law?

    the parent with criminal negligence fails to
    require the child to attend school
    If a student is in attendance when school begins has the Parent required the student to attend classes for the day?
    as required by law

    Where is this required by law defined for
    the parent?

    required by law is defined for the child
    under 25.085

    § 25.085. COMPULSORY SCHOOL
    ATTENDANCE. (a) A child who
    is required to attend school
    under this section shall
    attend school each school
    day for the entire period
    the program of instruction
    is provided.


    each school day for the entire period the program of instruction is
    provided.

    Of course it is intuitive and within reason to conclude (that) if the child is in attendance (by attendance record) at the beginning of the program of instruction, the parent has required the child to attend school.

    The question still remains, whether the parent required the child to attend for the entire period the program of instruction is provided.

    When parents drop their children off at school they tell them things like I love you, have a good day, see you this afternoon, be on time to all of your classes, what are you going to do after school, where do you want me to pick you up after school, do you have money for lunch, etc etc etc.

    These are all examples of the Parent requiring the child to attend school.

    It is difficult to think of something a parent would say that would NOT require the child to attend for the entire period the program of instruction is provided.

    A Parent can require a child to attend just as the law requires the child to attend . That doesn't mean the child will fulfill the requirements.


    A Parent obeys the Law by requiring the child to attend.


    Wednesday, February 07, 2007

    The ability to exploit different parts of the Original "No Child Left Behind" mandate

    Responses to

    "The Parent requires the child to attend school if the child is present at beginning of the day!"



    Jaime Kenedeno
    to Solomon.Ortiz, cathy.travis, bchesney, bill, haciendaconst, hcgarrett, joe, johnmarezdistr., rkinnison, Thomas, jbaker, Monica, molina, SecondDistrict, zev, ABKatz, Rita, don, Michael, scooley, rdelgadillo, Councilmember.., Bill, Councilmember.., Councilmember.., Councilmember..

    show details
    12:31 am (30 minutes ago)
    Dear Mr Carter,
    Thank you for you candid response and I am sure there is a similar law in your state. Attached is our Attendance Accounting Handbook, maybe it will be of some use to you. No Child Left Behind I believe is applicable in all states however the creative manipulation is likely to have common themes while also developed uniqueness depending on the colloquial environment and. the ability to exploit different parts of the Original "No Child Left Behind" mandate The way we help each other is by communicating the manipulation to each other and including the Lawmakers and School District Administrators in our interstate communication. Our mistake is not communicating with each other. We need to get the word out!
    - Hide quoted text -


    On 2/7/07, Thomas D. Carter wrote:



    Mr. Baker:



    Thank you for forwarding my concerns below to DPSS.



    Thus as a good lawyer, do you know if California or LA County have this these rules, as listed below exist in Texas, where we leave no child behind, to allow you to pursue potential fraud and or drop-outs?



    Thanks again,



    Tom



    From: Thomas D. Carter [mailto:tdc.cpa@sbcglobal.net]
    Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:55 AM
    To: 'Jaime Kenedeno'; 'cascott@kailocs.com'; ' jlongor2@stx.rr.com'; 'lrubio01@stx.rr.com'
    Cc: 'Superintendent@ccisd.us'; 'plgarcia@ccisd.us'; ' PAParr@ccisd.us'; 'maabrego@ccisd.us'; 'kaconoly@ccisd.us'; ' edhutchinson@ccisd.us'; 'eatrevino@ccisd.us'; 'dselliff@ccisd.us'; ' asnoriega@ccisd.us'; 'amhernandez@ccisd.us'; 'aevillarreal@ccisd.us'; 'Deeb, Richard'; ' FranWong@dpss.lacounty.gov'; 'david.tokofsky@lausd.net'; ' brd@smmusd.org'; 'Willis, Doug'; 'Frank Gruber'; 'smartenupla@yqhoo.com'; ' Editor@smobserver.com'; 'Newton, Jim'; 'lausdparents@yahoogroups.com'; 'Burke, Ed'; 'Canter, Marlene'; 'Isaacs, Dan M'; 'lausdparents@yahoogroups.com'; 'Ragasa, Dennis@DSS'; 'michelle.king@lausd.net'; ' saenz_thomas@lacoe.edu'; 'waugh_sophia@lacoe.edu'; 'Kwan_Frank'; 'Shelton_Kenneth@lacoe.edu'; 'assemblymember.Nunez@assembly.ca.gov'
    Subject: RE: [CCISD] The Parent requires the child to attend school if the child is presen...



    Hi there:



    I was recently was sent your email, as posted below and found it most interesting.



    Can you let me know if this law is also a California law and please feel free to contact me to discuss how my finding in Los Angeles might also exist in your area?



    The concept is simple, the issue is to see that the computer data base "record layout" of the existing computer data bases have common fields to "match" information and produce good information.



    I look forward to hearing from some of you accordingly.



    Thank you for caring about children.



    Thomas D Carter, AKA Mr. Flashlight shining his light on the "truth"

    From: Thomas D. Carter [mailto:tdc.cpa@sbcglobal.net]
    Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:41 AM
    To: 'Shelton_Kenneth@lacoe.edu'
    Cc: Various

    Subject: FW: [lausdparents] RE: Drop out issue within LACOE



    Mr. Shelton:



    In order to allow you to answer me timely please consider the email below being requested being made in accordance with California Codes, Section 6250 et seq, including Section 1798.



    Please therefore accept my apology for not remembering that this is needed to be able to receive a response from your office.



    The response can be made to me and those listed above via email if desired.



    The basis question is what does LACOE do to determine that student "drop-out" data is accurate, as reported by schools; and does LACOE corroborate any student data with any other LA County agency like DPSS or the Sherriff's office, that now has an inmate data base?



    Thank you in advance for caring about the future of public education,



    Thomas D. Carter, AKA Mr. Flashlight shining his light on the "truth"

    From: lausdparents@yahoogroups.com [mailto: lausdparents@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas D. Carter
    Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:23 PM
    To: Shelton_Kenneth@lacoe.edu
    Cc: Various

    Mr. Shelton:

    Thank you for having sent me some data regarding students within LACOE.

    Are you possibly aware, that I have discovered in Los Angles County that the
    local schools and LA County DPSS it appears do not "validate" attendance
    data timely using their respective data bases and I wonder if "community
    welfare" overrides "privacy" as it appears and told to me is the reason?

    I am told that "privacy is the issue, yet the forms signed by parents and
    the information on the CalWORKS web sites state that "investigation" of the
    information filed may be "verified" - what is the "truth" and if we
    contacted parents and or guardians could we save a student "drop-out from
    maybe ending up DEAD and or improve internal controls and reduce potential
    fraud?

    What fiduciary audit procedures, if any, does your office use currently to
    "verify" that LA County DPSS case files and or local school attendance
    records, like LAUSD "match" data to be able to state they in compliance with
    the purpose desired by CalWORKS and that the LACOE funding data reported to
    the State is accurate?

    Please note, some four years ago I discovered that in Santa Monica some 15%
    of the students in Middle School stopped bringing back their Federal program
    "free and or reduced" lunch program forms. The response from the schools and
    the LA County system was they were "to macho" and subsequently I was told it
    was a "privacy issue". According to DPSS and LAUSD the Federal program does
    not require attendance validation, but the State program does and
    administered by the same LA County agency. Does this sound familiar like
    when we discovered after 9/11 that the FBI and local agencies did not
    communicate for the good of the nation - yes?

    I then went to LAUSD where I discovered (a State program) that we currently
    have a CalWORKS requirement to "validate" attendance using form PA 1725.
    Unfortunately, this from is handled at the local school level and thus there
    is no "validation" at the District level (data entered into the computer).
    Or said differently no automation to see when a child is "not in school"
    after 10 days to contact a parent and or guardian as to why.

    My suggestion is to require that all the schools, starting with those in LA
    County, using their attendance data base contact via the computer LA County
    DPSS after a child is "not in school" for ten days and thus the LA county
    DPSS case workers could contact the parent and or guardian or impose
    "penalties" in accordance with their regulations. Simple and it could work.

    Can you pass this suggestion on the LACOE Board and also ask them what State
    and or County law existed and possibly exists today that a child is required
    to be in school and or a court could remove the child from the family? Maybe
    this law could "trump" the "privacy" issue others are stating as the
    stumbling block.

    In closing, I am a CPA and when I see there is a way to build a better
    mousetrap I try to let others know of my finding, especially if we could
    save some drop-outs from becoming members of society in a way we do not wish
    to read about in the media - get the picture?.

    Thank you in advance for your assistance.

    Thomas D Carter

    Tuesday, February 06, 2007

    The Parent requires the child to attend school if the child is present at beginning of the day!

    The Parent fails to require the child to attend school if the child fails to arrive at the school


    TEXAS EDUCATION CODE
    Sec. 25.094. FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL

    The fallacy of this law is that it does not differentiate between a student that is absent and a student that is skipping or tardy.

    An absent student is one who does not arrive at school in the morning and is absent for the WHOLE Day. The student was never on campus. The Parent is responsible for the student getting to school (requiring the student to attend school). If the student does not get to school it is the Parent’s responsibility not necessarily the Parent’s fault. There are circumstances where the student will walk in the front door and out the back door without attending a single class. This is where the attendance officers need to improve their due diligence like the old days.

    Once the student is counted present in the morning; the Parent has required the student (child) to attend school. Once the student is verified in attendance at the beginning of the school day the student is in the custody of the School.

    If the student is tardy or skips class (on campus or off campus) this happens on the watch of the school. The Parent if informed should cooperate and communicate with the School Counselors Administrators and the Attendance Officer to correct the behavior. The Security and Attendance officer should take notice and tighten the belt. This is a security issue as well; there is no excuse for students coming and going outside of the lunch period and it is imperative that attendance irregularities be dealt with within 24 hours. This is easily done with our modern technology.

    Instead, what we are seeing is the Attendance Officers documenting the absences as they accumulate and filing on the Parent and student when the number of absences are achieved.

    Another fallacy resides in the Parental notification outreach process. There are parts of the law that dictate certain steps be taken,

    A warning is issued as required by Section 25.095(a)

    25.095(a) refers to the Issuance of student handbook at the beginning of the school year that informs the reader of the Non Attendance law and the student's parent is subject to prosecution under Section 25.093 and the student is subject to prosecution under Section 25.094 if the student is absent from school on 10 or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year or on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period.

    (b) A school district shall notify a student's parent if the student has been absent from school, without excuse under Section 25.087, on three days or parts of days within a four-week period. The notice must:

    (1) inform the parent that:

    (A) it is the parent's duty to monitor the student's school attendance and require the student to attend school; and

    (B) the parent is subject to prosecution under Section 25.093; and

    (2) request a conference between school officials and the parent to discuss the absences.

    But if these steps required (by the very same law) for the School under 25.095 (a) or (b) are disregarded by the School this is not a defense to the prosecution.

    (c) The fact that a parent did not receive a notice under Subsection (a) or (b) does not create a defense to prosecution under Section 25.093 or 25.094.

    So the Parent is prosecuted regardless of whether the rules applying to the school responsibilities are followed or not.

    The School has no responsibility.

    Monday, February 05, 2007

    Accountability: Good analogy from Texas Ed

    February 5, 2007

    Accountability

    There are so many who want education reform based on “running a business” and accountability that I think it’s time to explain the situation in language they should understand.

    Let’s pretend that you run a plant nursery. You sell a healthy, well-kept tree to your customer. You give them fertilizer and detailed instructions. You might even go out and check on the tree every so often. If the tree fails to grow because it doesn’t receive enough fertilizer, who’s fault is it?

    Or maybe you’re a mechanic and you get a new customer who had been taking his car to another mechanic. The car hasn’t been maintained so you do a tune-up and explain basic maintenance tasks. The customer takes the car home and it breaks down. Are you a bad mechanic?

    How about being a doctor and you’re treating a child for asthma and the child keeps having asthma attacks because the parent continues to smoke around the child. (Okay, I’m winging it here since I don’t what all can cause asthma attacks.) Would your treatment of the patient be considered successful?

    Of course, in most cases your customers hold up “their side” of the transaction. Even so, as a manager you would need to take account such problem customers as the ones described above when evaluating your employees. You would have to figure which employees have had truly difficult customer situations and which are just using it as an excuse for poor performance.

    However, if you were to use the methods suggested from the Texans for Excellence in the Classroom report, you would simply provide the mechanic with three more sessions on how to be a good mechanic. And if the customer’s car breaks down again, fire the mechanic. The doctor would be given special training on dealing with asthma patients and if the child continued to have attacks, her license would be revoked.

    As much as people would like to believe otherwise, education reform isn’t going to have a simple, easy solution. It’s not true in business, why should it be in education?

    I don’t think all teachers are against being evaluate in their performance. I do think they want and deserve to have extenuating circumstances considered in their evaluations.

    You can’t “make” people into good parents by passing laws to make them go to teacher conferences or feed their children five vegetables a day. There is no licensing process you have to go through before you can be a parent even though there are plenty of parents out there who are walking advertisements for such a system.

    As long as there is such a large uncontrollable variable that effects the results, it’s not only unfair to the teachers to apply a one size fits all to education accountability, it’s unfair to the student as well. Schools that take the time and energy needed to truly address education deficiencies that originate in the home are penalized.

    Do businesses succeed when they focus on short-term earnings for investors or investment in infrastructure and training? Both? It all depends? Do businesses succeed when they take a “one size fits all” approach? Can you think of a better way to set up public schools to fail than demand that “no child be left behind?”