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


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.


dannoynted1 said...

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?


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

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!

dannoynted1 said...

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?