The Observation Deck

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Not always. I turned 18 before I graduated, and 95% of kids do too.

even the 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders???

No, but I don't know many 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders at the high school, or walking the streets alone during school days.

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Not always. I turned 18 before I graduated, and 95% of kids do too.

even the 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders???

No, but I don't know many 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders at the high school, or walking the streets alone during school days.

ok JOB

Some really good points in this article : ) and hopefully food for thought for city officials and administration...........

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/tr ... m_pg4.html

wondering if the Guidance Counselors and school Psychologists meet on a regular basis to discuss how these kids can be better served and engaged--one size doesn't fit all! My point being that a puntitive approach will not help these kids in most cases.. we need a bit more creativity and compassion and less harshness!

Exactly, Ruthie. As I posted earlier, truancy is a SOCIAL issue. Laws won't solve the problem. These students and their families need intervention and direction to support services.

But I suspect the main focus of this law does not have the welfare of the students at heart. There is not an outpouring of empathy here for students and dysfunctional families.

Let's be honest, this law is more about KEEPING CERTAIN PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS.

Is this how we want to live in Lakewood? Turn into a mini police state so we can "feel safe?"

Grace O'Malley wrote:Let's be honest, this law is more about KEEPING CERTAIN PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS.

Is this how we want to live in Lakewood? Turn into a mini police state so we can "feel safe?"

The children are not supposed to be walking the streets during school hours. They are supposed to be in school.

Truancy increases dropout rates, disrupts the normal working environment in the schools, decreases learning, increases crime and is a violation of the law.

Asking children to show up at school is not the first step on the long journey to a police state.

What is your real problem with efforts to combat truancy?

This is a good thread.

I think just about everybody here is more right than they are wrong.

Even Bill.

Yes, we need more flexibility, more options, more creativity, more compassion....

Yes, it's a social issue...

And this rotten, inflexible (in my opinion) "No Child Left Behind" law needs to be tossed out on its ear. High standards without flexibility means that more and more youngsters who can't fit into some college-bound school cookie-cutter paradigm will sooner or later take to the streets.

And yes, I also think that getting to bed by a decent hour on a school night should be encouraged too.

But yes, misbehavior needs to be addressed too, and the way things are currently set up can certainly be improved.

And a BIG yes here: Parents do need to be accountable for their minor children.

Lame excuses, whining, and social issues are not valid reasons for breaking the law.

Now there ARE times when children can't get to school due to family issues. That's where flexibility comes in.

To a large extent though, we've always had a great deal of flexibility with schools. Let's face it. In life, there are only 2 grades- A or F. Either you do it right, or you didn't. There are no B's C's or D's in life!

Bill

I am still pondering the law, and see both sides.

However today I noticed teens at Phoenix, when I spoke with them, they mentioned, that they do not have to be in school until 11:00am. So I asked, they claim to have a friend that has a two period break during the day and runs down to Phoenix during the break.

Lakewood Academy I believe have students leaving as early as 1pm. Then we have work release students that only have a half a day school.

So my question would be, how will it work? Now if this single person knows who to look for, that would be the constant trouble makers, then I guess it makes sense. But if this single person is checking on residency, truancy, work and kids not in school for various reasons, it would seem a little overwhelming for one person.

Also in an era of very limited $$$$$$, what are we losing to hire this one person. Can fines be used to offset the cost of the officer?

I mean and I know this is a stretch, but am I losing backyard pick-up because of a handful of students? Are we losing new uniforms because of a handful of students?

FWIW


.

What is your real problem with efforts to combat truancy?

Did I ever say we shouldn't work to counter truancy? Did I not post several studies on this issue and the ineffectiveness of the laws?

As for efforts to counter it, I insist that they should be based on the understanding that these are SOCIAL issues and dealt with accordingly.

As for laws, WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS AGAINST TRUANCY. I guess you keep missing that. We have compulsory education laws, we have truancy laws, we have penalties in juvenile court for both the child and the parents. Why not enforce the exisitng laws?

Children should be in school. In many cases its their only shot at a chance to get out of poverty. I WANT children to be in school learning.

This redundant law will not keep children in school and you are foolish if you think it will.

Of course, I expected a xenophobe like you would think this law was just peachy.

If this is what is needed to better equip the police than great. Seems pretty simple to me. But then again, I don't have an axe to grind with the Mayor or the Schools and don't normally go for the excuses that problematic individuals just need counselling or intervention or more compassion. The number used earlier was over 200 students facing some form of disipline for truancy. That's an entire class for most schools. We can minimize this number if it helps us feel better but I wouldn't say this is a minor issue.

I'm a bit curious as well, of those that are hopping the so called fence to come to Lakewood schools and using bogus addresses to do so, if they are "truant" wouldn't it be an easy point in time to just drop them from the school? Seems strange that someone would go through the trouble just to not go to class but if they want to pop up on the radar then do a bit of research and if they're residency doesn't check out then give 'em the boot. It's always amazed me at how lax schools are in their admissions process that they get into a situation where non-resident students are taking up space in their classrooms. It's one thing that our funding mechanism for the schools is screwed up but it's that much worse that property taxes are paying for students who shouldn't even be there.

Grace,

My guess at why they don't enforce the rules they have in place now is because it makes the administration look like they aren't innovative and trying something new.

What I mean by that is you can take a rule that's in place now and that hasn't been tried out, say that it has not worked and label it as "not enough". Give it a paint job and tweak the words, introduce it in a press release with a smiling Mayor and Superintendent (who by the way keeps his shoes on for this special occasion) and then people stare with gleaming eyes at our proactive City leaders.

It's all about sending a message. Do you really think councilmen (and women) sit in their day jobs and wonder "Gee, what can I do to make everyone's kids go to school". I wonder who the genius was that sprung up from their office desk and yelled "I know what we can do, we can mandate it!".

And this officer that they are talking about, they already have one.

He works with the Security Office and he likes to drive after kids who are out of the building and pick them up in a van. I've seen him as far as Harding before.

One time he offered me candy, but it turned out to be a detention slip rolled up.

I visited old teachers yesterday. I noticed that hey, trailer park high school was in session and kids had to get from one side of the building to another. If you're the truant person, why not blend in with the kids that are walking to and from class, until the officer leaves and you can then hop in your car and leave.

I mean, the kids will only be in the trailers for a FEW MORE YEARS!

All of this discussion is great; but, unfortunately, none of it really won't change anything as the decision has aleady been made. I am feeling more and more that the charm and openness of our community is being lost--as community engagement seems to be less and less sought after
and there seems to be this defensiveness when city officials are asked to explain their positions...what is that about? I realize that city jobs are especially difficult given the financial climate and bring with it loads of pressure which often causes a short fuze-- but one of the qualifications of any job in politics should be grace under fire, shouldn't it? I mean do any of us really need officials to respresent us that don't believe our points are valid--or are unable to articulate the benefits of a chosen course of action?

where are our council people....when was the last time you heard council host a town meeting for their ward to discuss anything? We need them more than ever to listen to us!

R

The money is coming from the school district so the real question is what are the students losing out on.

Ruthie Koenigsmark wrote:All of this discussion is great; but, unfortunately, none of it really won't change anything as the decision has aleady been made.

where are our council people....when was the last time you heard council host a town meeting for their ward to discuss anything? We need them more than ever to listen to us!

R

Ruthie, I agree with you 110%. I haven't even heard about this new rule until Jim posted this thread.

Quite sneaky.

But what I wanted to add was that where were citizens in this, demanding a conversation or debate about whether to enact this truancy law or not. This sneakiness gives us residents the idea that a lot of things are going on behind closed doors. This might not be the end of the world here, but imagine if this type of closed door decision making between two powerful offices in Lakewood goes on when a bigger, more important issue is at stake.

Same thing happened with the dress code rule. But, I will give the BOE credit because they made the High School administration sit in the cafeteria for a few hours and put up with all the parents that were against it. But the BOE had it's mind made up, so regardless of what the students and parents said in those meetings, they would enact the dress code. And they did. And no one (including the teachers) liked it.

Contrary to what City Hall, Council and the BOE want you to believe, which is that you don't have much say in this at all, we residents will have a ton of say when their names and levies come up on our ballots in the future.

Taxpayers, voters and residents can make City Hall, Council and the BOE dance and sing like puppets on strings if we didn't like what they were up to.

I demand better government leadership, and I hope you do too.

This issue was discussed at a combined board of education and administration meeting on Dec 3rd. Only 4 members of the public were in attendance and the need for this new law and position was questioned by one member of the school board. From the numbers I heard it seemed like a bit of an overreaction, but I could be wrong. Anyhow the frustrating thing about these decisions is they go unchallenged because most meetings are not well attended. I know there are various reasons why members of the public don't attend, I know for me it's hockey night and I try and make it. The other problem with the school board meeting and city council meetings is that they are often held on the same night and same time.

My hope is that when these types of big decisions are made in the future that the public will be consulted. I do not think these types of decisions which affect the entire community should be done in quiet little meetings, but that is just my opinion.