Let’s start with a quiz:
1. A third grader in Florida is often late for class. She tends to forget her homework and is unprepared for tests. The teacher would like to talk to her parents about this, but they fail to attend parent-teacher conferences. The teacher should:
a) fail the student.
Illustration: Taipei Times
b) fail the parents.
2. A middle-school student in Alaska is regularly absent, and his grades are suffering as a result. The district should:
a) fail the student.
b) fine the parents US$500 a day for every day the student is not in school.
3. A California kindergartner has been absent, without a doctor’s note or other “verifiable reason,” 10 times in one semester. The district should:
a) call the parents.
b) call the district attorney and have charges brought against the parents.
The answer, under state laws in the US that have been proposed (No. 1), or recently enacted (No. 2 and No. 3), is “b” on all counts: If a student is behaving badly, punish Mom and Dad.
Teachers are fed up with being blamed for the failures of US education, and legislators are starting to hear them. A spate of bills introduced in various states now takes aim squarely at the parents. If you think you can legislate teaching, the notion goes, why not try legislating parenting?
It is a complicated idea, taking on the controversial question of whether parents, teachers or children are most to blame when a child fails to learn.
But the thinking goes like this: If you look at schools that “work,” as measured by test scores and graduation rates, they all have involved (overinvolved?) parents, who are on top of their children’s homework, in contact with their children’s teachers and invested in their children’s futures. So just require the same of parents in schools that don’t work, and the problem is solved (or, at least, dented), right?
Time was that children’s behavior in the classroom reflected on their “upbringing” and parents were expected to reinforce an accepted truth that “teacher knows best.” But today’s parents are just as likely to see the teacher as the problem — a view that has been reinforced by presidents who accuse teachers of leaving more than a few children behind, governors who want to eliminate their collective bargaining and mayors who want to be rid of laws that protect teachers who have been in their jobs the longest.
It was conversations about what to do with lousy teachers that led to some of the new parental measures. Indiana state Representative Linda Lawson visited a local high school being threatened with closure for poor performance. “Any kind of problem in an academic setting, and people blame the teachers,” she recalled hearing over and over again. “They say things like, ‘If teachers were more responsive ... didn’t have the summers off ... worked an eight-hour day ...’ But no one looks at the parents.”
In Florida, state Representative Kelli Stargel was hearing the same things. “Teachers were telling us: ‘We can only do so much in the classroom. We have no control over what happens with these kids at home,”’ she said.
Lawson’s answer was to introduce a bill requiring parents to spend three hours each semester volunteering either in the school building or at a school-related function. She cast it as an anti-bullying measure, though it would not apply just to parents of bullies. The purpose, she said, was to increase parent-teacher interaction, giving teachers a chance to talk to parents and giving parents a better sense of the rhythms and requirements of the school.
Stargel, in turn, came up with a more startling piece of legislation: a requirement to grade parents on their involvement in their child’s education, and to post that grade on the child’s report card. Mom and Dad skip the parent-teacher conferences? “Unsatisfactory.” Send their child to class properly dressed, fed and with the proper supplies? “Satisfactory.” Are spotty in the checking of homework? “Need improvement.”
Both bills faced resistance from parents. “We don’t feel that the teacher having to grade the parent is really going to improve that relationship,” Cindy Gerhardt, the president of the Florida Parent Teacher Association, said tartly during hearings.
They also became bogged down in the problem of definitions. For example: What counts as involvement at school? Selling popcorn at a sporting event? Doing building repairs on weekends? And how do you define good or bad parenting — worthy of a passing or failing grade? Is the mother who sends a child to school with a Pop-Tart in hand a “needs improvement” parent or an “unsatisfactory” one? (Or maybe she deserves a medal for getting anything into the child at all.)
And how do you score the one whose children always have their homework completed because, as it turns out, the parent did most of the work?
Or the one whose child shows up with assignments undone, because the parent wants the child to learn the consequences of slacking off?
The parent-participation bill in Indiana did not even get a hearing this session. The Florida parent report-card bill was discussed but never brought to a vote. Neither lawmaker is giving up, though. Both plan to revise their proposals over the summer and reintroduce them in the fall. In the next iteration, Stargel said: “We are going to stick to things we can measure. We can’t actually ‘fail’ parents. All we are really aiming to do is identify those parents who aren’t doing all they should so we can intervene.”
But other states have already enacted laws aimed at improving parenting. Alaska fines parents for a child’s truancy. In California, a misdemeanor charge can be brought against a parent if the truancy is flagrant enough. California is also the first state to allow judges to order parents to attend parenting classes if their child belongs to a gang. The goal, said the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, is to help parents navigate the minefield of adolescence. The new law took effect in January, and early reports indicate that attendance at the classes is sparse. That is not surprising, said Diane Ravitch, an education historian and the author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System. Yes, parenting can be “taught,” Ravitch said, but not this way.
“If we could just find the right person to punish,” she said of the philosophy behind too many education reform plans. “Punish the teachers. Punish the parents. It’s Dickensian. What we should be doing instead is giving a helping hand.”
“Parenting education needs to begin when a woman is pregnant,” Ravitch said. “The window is open from prenatal days until age 5. And we need to acknowledge that the root problem is poverty.”
In the end, then, all these “punish the parents” paradigms will probably take their historical place as just one more shift of the pendulum in the sweep that already includes contradictory certainties like “children are being allowed to grow up too quickly” and “children are being infantilized too long.” Like every other new way of thinking, it will eventually be looked on as a well-intentioned but flawed reflection of a moment in time.
Standing in that moment, though, does punishing the parents seem to make sense?
a) No, it won’t make any difference.
b) At least it’s worth a shot.
April 14 to April 20 In March 1947, Sising Katadrepan urged the government to drop the “high mountain people” (高山族) designation for Indigenous Taiwanese and refer to them as “Taiwan people” (台灣族). He considered the term derogatory, arguing that it made them sound like animals. The Taiwan Provincial Government agreed to stop using the term, stating that Indigenous Taiwanese suffered all sorts of discrimination and oppression under the Japanese and were forced to live in the mountains as outsiders to society. Now, under the new regime, they would be seen as equals, thus they should be henceforth
Last week, the the National Immigration Agency (NIA) told the legislature that more than 10,000 naturalized Taiwanese citizens from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) risked having their citizenship revoked if they failed to provide proof that they had renounced their Chinese household registration within the next three months. Renunciation is required under the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), as amended in 2004, though it was only a legal requirement after 2000. Prior to that, it had been only an administrative requirement since the Nationality Act (國籍法) was established in
Three big changes have transformed the landscape of Taiwan’s local patronage factions: Increasing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) involvement, rising new factions and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) significantly weakened control. GREEN FACTIONS It is said that “south of the Zhuoshui River (濁水溪), there is no blue-green divide,” meaning that from Yunlin County south there is no difference between KMT and DPP politicians. This is not always true, but there is more than a grain of truth to it. Traditionally, DPP factions are viewed as national entities, with their primary function to secure plum positions in the party and government. This is not unusual
US President Donald Trump’s bid to take back control of the Panama Canal has put his counterpart Jose Raul Mulino in a difficult position and revived fears in the Central American country that US military bases will return. After Trump vowed to reclaim the interoceanic waterway from Chinese influence, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed an agreement with the Mulino administration last week for the US to deploy troops in areas adjacent to the canal. For more than two decades, after handing over control of the strategically vital waterway to Panama in 1999 and dismantling the bases that protected it, Washington has
RSS