By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 11:57 AM
St. Louis Public Schools Superintendent Diana Bourisaw wants a daytime curfew for children in the City of St. Louis. And the President of the Board of Aldermen appears ready to help.
"In the past two months, I have approached many elected officials, including Board of Alderman President Jim Shrewsbury and Police Chief Joe Mokwa," said Bourisaw in a press release today. She said a daytime curfew has been a successful tool that has been used in many other cities across the country to reduce the truancy rate. Such curfews typically prohibit children from being in public places other than schools during school hours on weekdays.
According to SLPS, Shrewsbury has already drafted an ordinance to establish a daytime ordinance which is currently being reviewed by Ald. Terry Kennedy, chairman of the Public Safety Committee.
"Truancy is a very serious issue and I am willing to help the Superintendent deal with it. I expect to have a daytime curfew ordinance ready to be introduced in the near future," said Shrewsbury.
13 Comments:
As long as it contains provisions for home schoolers, it sounds good. Kids with learning disabilities get encouraged to leave schools, so parents end up educating them. NCLB has unfortunate unintended consequences.
LD Parent
10/11/2006 12:33 PM
I agree about the home schooling provision. I think there should also be a provision that if the children are with their parent/family member it is not enforced. There have been times when I have taken my child out of school early to attend something I felt was educational (library activities, etc.)
10/11/2006 1:07 PM
so what if your child goes to non-public school and has a diffeent day off? Will the police scoop them up?
10/11/2006 1:18 PM
Don't we already have truancy ordinances and statutes on the books?
Perhaps we should actually enforce the laws we have before making new ones. The current laws may, in fact, be adequate if they are adequately enforced.
Perhaps they're not adequate. Still, first let's try enforcing the laws we actually have and judge their adequacy, before making new law.
10/11/2006 1:49 PM
- LD Parent
"NCLB has unfortunate unintended consequences"
Getting kids out of Public school was the point of the bill.
If you have the time to take care of your kid at home great.
What about the parents that both work?
10/11/2006 5:19 PM
How many people think a piece of legislation will be the solution to this problem...
But even more to the point...
If this is such a great idea, what took so long to actually do it?
Is this what we get for having a school district which is totally separate from city government, or..
Is this what we get for having a city government which is totally separate from public schools?
.....
10/11/2006 7:37 PM
The way to address truancy is to make schools actually desirable for students! Maybe if the students had adequate bathrooms, clean halls that are not falling apart, and walls absent of graffiti, the students would actually want to be in school. We can also implement after school/summer community programs such as plays, basketball tournaments, and science/art contests, with general supervisory programs. The help of college students doing their student teaching/work and learn program would make this low cost. The college students would volunteer and receive college credit as well as job experience. A public private partnership should be made with local Universities such as Lindenwood, UMSL, Maryville, or any other qualified program.
When children are cast aside and treated as second class citizens we can expect them to turn to the streets. In gangs of their peers they receive respect, money, and live a lifestyle which is glorified in the media and the entertainment industry.
Schools need to be attractive to students and a fun place, however we are focusing on punishment for an act which is the result of poor urban schools, inadequate administration, and political infighting.
10/11/2006 8:14 PM
I guess he's trying to do something now since he's running for office.
HA HA HA.....
10/11/2006 11:11 PM
If school would also be fun if the
the students would be able to chose what foods they would like to eat. So children don't eat meat, so why would you give them meat? The food in the lunchroom is nasty. I had lunch with my child in the lunchroom, and the food made me sick, so my child carrys a lunch everyday. She stated that the lunch is nasty also. Why do the school want to give children food that they don't eat at home. I went to school everyday just to eat in the lunchroom, and I enjoyed it.The teachers made school interesting, they prepared us for the real world. After I did my four years in college, I now own a business, and doing very well. The teachers back in the day cared about the students and would always tell us, "Once you get a education, no one can take it away from you." Teachers and good food can go a long way.
10/12/2006 12:19 PM
There needs to be a nightime curfew also. Go into Schnucks on South Grand any weeknight around midnight you are likely to see several grade school age (or younger) children shopping with a parent.
10/12/2006 2:09 PM
hey, its nice to know that Dougie Duckworth is an expert on education and child rearing too. Hey Doug - do you do anything other than blog? I'll bet you arent event registered to vote!
10/12/2006 5:22 PM
Unsupervised children at any time of day can be problematic, and certainly are in my neighborhood. I don't think a 'day curfew' is the right terminology here. What we want is stronger anti-truancy laws. The law already does say you can be fined $25.00 per day (up to 90 days) if your kid is not in school.
However, the parent can always just CLAIM to be a homeschooler. Missouri does not require registration of homeschoolers. I don't think there's any way around that; the Christian conservatives in rural Missouri don't want any regulations on homeschooling.
The effectiveness of city ordinances will always be constrained by state laws that don't really consider the urban environment.
I also think the current nighttime curfew needs to be strengthened, as recently proposed in the Board of Aldermen. Younger kids need to be home earlier.
Curfew also should apply to 17-year-olds, regardless of whether they are in school. They may not be 'juveniles' under the law, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to roam the streets freely. They're not 18 yet!
Of course, some would say we need to put a curfew on EVERYBODY, including (especially?) drunken idiotic adults. Maybe someday it will come to that; but I sure hope not!
I do have a self-imposed curfew of 9:30 PM though. I refuse to be out on the streets later than that (even on the way to and from work), unless it's a real emergency. And really, in my neighborhood, I don't like to be out on the streets after dark.
Wasn't there a time when parents made sure their children were home by dark? If they weren't, there were consequences!
You can't legislate everything about parental behavior though. If a parent takes their 8 or 9 year old out to the grocery store at midnight, as long as they stick close to the parent and still make it to school the next day, I don't think it's the job of legislation to try and prevent that.
Lots of contradictions and complicating factors. That's life.
10/12/2006 5:26 PM
Seems to me like southside whites don't want black kids out at any time, day or night. So I guess Shrewsbury is going after the white vote with this.
Reed will have to come out against it, because most of the kids they will be rounding up will be black. So much for his chances in the election.
10/12/2006 6:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home