|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
00SL2
Guest
|
| The Flint City Council is considering a truancy ordinance in an effort to get kids off the street and back in school. Judge Duncan Beagle, who presides over Truancy Court, and Councilman Sheldon Neeley were guests on Michael J. Thorpes's Newsmaker program today. Battle Creek has had a truancy ordinance there for about three years and it has helped. Flint schools' dropout rate is too high, its graduation rate too low. A truancy ordinance is one of the tools to help turn this city around. Second reading coming up. |
|
|
Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:58 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
OK, so how are the schools going to handle these students that don't want to be there?
Seems to me (and this is only my opinion) that we need to figure out how to get these kids to want to go to school! Want to get an education!
How many ordinances do we have right now that are not being enforced! How many new laws that will never get enforced does it take to be written to actually get something accomplished! Is this administrationt he one to enforce ordinances! It openly violates zoning ordinances by having the junk yard I mean impound lot almost in downtown!
The policy needs to be more encompassing. |
|
|
|
Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:36 pm |
|
|
John Wilson
F L I N T O I D
|
How a city council is supposed to work. Flint are you watching? These people are in your backyard. This is a long read, but check it out - fascinating arguments for and against the truancy ordinance. If you want to skip to the last page - it passed. All school kids must be in school or at home being schooled.
Ted, I agree. Make the schools fun. In NYC they have special high schools for certain kinds of kids -- arts kids, sports kids, academic kids, they put them in the school that makes the most sense, not where the live. 
We have four high schools in Flint, plus lots of other buildings to use. I say adopt that Academy concept for all schools and put the kids where they want to go, not force them. I remember they had the magnet program, which I was a part of. I loved it! Spent lots of time on the bus, but it let me read and I got to learn a lot of cool stuff.
But for those kids who just don't get it (who really does at 14 or 15) then provide some nasty alternatives; getting busted. That sucks.
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, BATTLE CREEK, MI
October 5, 2004
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
INVOCATION (Father Chris Yaw, St. Thomas Episcopal Church)
MEMBERS PRESENT: Comms. Baldwin, Behnke, Bilbia, Bullock, Franklin, Hersha, Macfarlane, and Walker.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Godfrey
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Wiley, Robinson, Tsuchiyama, Ritsema, Headings, Michelle Reen, Assistant to the City Manager, and D. Owens, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Res. 338
Resolved by the Commission of the City of Battle Creek:
THAT Ordinance No. 20-04 which was introduced September 21, 2004, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 694, “YOUTH OFFENSES” SECTIONS 694.01, 694.02,
AND 694.03 TO REVISE THE PROVISIONS FOR YOUTH CURFEW.
be adopted, with scrivener’s errors corrected.
DISCUSSION:
Christine Ross, was concerned as a home-schooled parent that this ordinance would limit her rights to use public facilities unless she chooses to use them after school hours. She indicated that part of home-schooled
education is service to the community and felt the service portion could be limited also. Ms. Ross stated it is important that her children have access to the public library and museums. She also did not want to see her
children labeled as special. Ms. Ross believed it was more important to enforce the current truancy laws rather than adding youth curfews that limits the community that we serve.
Andrew Owen, 148 E. Burnham, appreciated the work done on the ordinance. Those in support of the ordinance were public school officials, educational leaders, downtown business people, the Tiger Room staff,
and law enforcement. Mr. Owen did not think the Commission could not make an unbiased decision. He believed that commissioners want to see the best for the community. Law enforcement is now able to enter
homes in ways they weren’t able to enter before.
Esther Owen, 148 E. Burnham, reminded the Commission that this is a representative form of government and believed there was overwhelming opposition to the ordinance. Lastly, she commended the public for their
interest in this issue.
Julie Camp, 8690 2 /12 Mile Road, felt the foundations of the ordinance are based on the wrong premise. Ms. Camp asked the Commission to take their energies and market it towards the schools. Since there are
already current laws that address disorderly conduct and shoplifting, Ms. Camp expressed there is no need for another criminal offense. She asked the Commission to work with Senator Mark Schauer and Representative
Mike Nofs to change laws at the state level. She stated the enforcement section of the ordinance addressed what the burden of proof would be from the parents. Although the revised ordinance is much better, Ms. Camp did
not believe the enforcement section was adequate. She asked the Commission to vote “no” on the Ordinance.
Marvin Munn, 149 Geiger Avenue, felt the biggest problem with the ordinance is the constitutional infringement that it represents. As home schoolers, his children do not adhere to traditional school hours and
are not legally mandated to do so. Mr. Munn felt the ordinance will benefit only a small minority and reeks of corruption. He stated that are already laws in place that address truancy. The adoption of this ordinance will
cost the citizens of Battle Creek and the businesses a law suit on the national level. Mr. Munn urged the Commission to vote “no.”
Kathleen Munn, 149 Geiger, shared her concern regarding the wording of the enforcement. She stated she has two children that could be affected by this ordinance. She was worried about how many times her children
would be stopped by police and questioned. Both of her children are politically active and help neighbors during the day. Ms. Munn stated her children are not limited by normal school hours.
Rebecca Munn, 149 Geiger, was concerned about being in public and being questioned by the police. She noted many school activities that are done during the day. Ms. Munn felt the wording of the ordinance could be
changed to make it better.
Daniel Williams, 155 W. Burnham, favored the Ordinance, but did not feel it should be taken up at this time. He did not believe that the City of Battle Creek was setting a good example for children. There are other
ordinances, like the night curfew and noise ordinance, which are not working. Mr. Williams felt that City needs to utilize the present ordinances before taking on new ones.
Crystal Childs, of Marshall, was concerned about how the police will identify home schoolers from truants. She noted state laws that provide protections and she would hate to have those changed. Ms. Childs felt the
ordinance is the first step for some negative problems for the home-schooled community.
Terry Oldenburg, 31 Willow, favored the ordinance. She recalled being at Kmart recently and witnessed high school kids in the parking lot who should have been in school. Vanessa Obu was in support of the ordinance. Where there are economically disadvantaged youth in a community, home schoolers need to open their eyes and see that they have to live with everybody.
Andrew Layton, 187 Sanwood Drive, did not believe that the ordinance was in the best interest of its citizens and it has been evident from public comments at the meetings. He did not think the majority of kids
should be penalized to help a small few. Mr. Layton asked the Commission to vote “no.”
Jackie Braman, 32 S. Broad, commented that it was not necessary to create another state law that is unenforceable on the local level. Ms. Braman felt it is our responsibility to help those who are struggling.
Renee Hawes, 3669 B Drive South, thanked the Commission for the many hours they have spent on this ordinance. As a home-schooled teacher, she stated she is not an enemy to the public school system, but noted
that schooling is not limited to the confines of her home. She stated it was unfortunate that this issue has turned into a debate. She felt the ordinance infringes on her constitutional rights. She asked the Commission to
consider other viable options to deter truancy that do not infringe on the public’s rights. Ms. Hawes asked the City to enforce current truancy laws and stated that daytime curfews assume that someone is guilty until proven
innocent. She asked the Commission to protect her nontruant innocent children.
Alisa McFall, 250 Deerpath Lane, thanked the Commission for listening to everyone’s comments. Minors have always had constitutional rights and freedom of movement within our country. Ms. McFall asked how we
are going to teach our children to be responsible citizens if we are not telling them that they have the right of citizenship. She encouraged the Commission to vote “no” on the ordinance and to target the chronic truants
stay in school.
Katherine Powers, 661 Knollwood Drive, recognized that revisions were made to the ordinance to make it more palatable to home schoolers. The Calhoun County Intermediate School District already has quite extensive policies and procedures to deal with truant issues. Although the state of Michigan, has laws exempting home schoolers, the CISD has misused these truant policies against home schoolers. Ms. Powers feared this ordinance could be used against home schoolers. She urged the Commission to vote “no.”
John Powers, 661 Knollwood Drive, opposed the ordinance as he believed existing truancy laws and advocate programs should be used. He stated that he has not heard how the ordinance will address the issues raised by the business community, particularly the students who are 16 or older. Mr. Powers urged the Commission to vote “no” and use the existing laws and resources.
Judy Campbell, of Mattawan, noted statistics regarding truancy provided by the Vocational Tech Center. Ms. Campbell invited the public to volunteer at the center to see what is going on.
Laura Whipple, 131 Pawnee, employed by the Calhoun County Intermediate School District as a Truancy Specialist, favored the ordinance. She noted that over 70% of the nations largest cities have a daytime curfew
in force. In utilizing the ordinance, they have found a drastic reduction in juvenile criminal activity. Mrs. Whipple stated that she currently has 230 children on her active truancy case load. When Mrs. Whipple
investigates a truant student, typically he/she has a younger or older sibling who has dropped out of school. In a four day period, 50% of the children reported by the Calhoun County Prosecutor’s office were under the age of
16. Under a new Michigan educational law, every school district is required to implement a parent involvement plan. Mrs. Whipple hoped that the ordinance will help the truancy problem.
John Kenefick, 234 South Avenue, noted that three Commission meetings ago, 24 people were against the ordinance and 12 were in favor. At another meeting, 11 people were against the ordinance and 7 people were in
favor.
At this meeting, Mr. Kenefick stated there are 14 people against the ordinance with 5 in favor. He did not believe that there was a need for another curfew law that restricts people. Mr. Kenefick encouraged the
Commission to vote “no” on the ordinance as he did not feel that it will solve the truancy problem.
Comm. Macfarlane stated when she was campaigning door-to-door, she was asked what she would be doing for education as a City Commissioner and believed that this is an opportunity for the City of Battle Creek to work with school districts to impact educational outcomes. Comm. Macfarlane stated there is a correlation between academic success and school attendance. She noted an education and economic impact report which looked at individual educational and community educational attainment. The national annual average earnings for less than a high school diploma is $18,900. For a person with a high school diploma, it is $25,900. Unemployment for people without a high school diploma is 7.1%. For those with a Bachelor’s degree, the statistics go down to less than 2%. The higher the educational attainment, the lower the rate of unemployment.
Comm. Macfarlane also commented about a report regarding southern states that were looking at why they weren’t garnering businesses to their states. They estimated that they lost $43B in investment and research
development dollars which would have been brought into existing businesses in those states. Graduation rates in these states were all low. They are now looking at a ten year plan to be competitive in recruiting businesses
in these southern states.
In conclusion, Comm. Macfarlane stated the more cross-pollination of strategies, the more successful a community will be, and she believed that the daytime curfew ordinance provides for that.
The total adult population without a high school diploma in Battle Creek is 6,032 adults.
Comm. Macfarlane felt the more opportunities the kids in our community have and the more intervention we can provide to them, the
more success we will have with our community as a whole. Therefore, Comm. Macfarlane would be supporting the ordinance.
Comm. Franklin stated he received quite a few emails regarding this issue. He believed there are adequate protections in this ordinance for the protection of rights of home-schooled children and parents. Comm.
Franklin felt the ordinance is targeting kids who are doing what they aren’t suppose to be doing. He noted there are many families in Ward 3 where both parents are working during the day. Those are the kids who need
someone tapping them on the shoulder when they are causing trouble and mischief. He stated that 8 out of 9 people in Ward 3 spoke in favor of this ordinance and Comm. Franklin supported the ordinance as well.
Comm. Behnke disclosed that he is a member of St. Philip Church and thanked the parishioners for assisting the advocates in their vision. He also applauded Ms. Campbell and her efforts for moving the program ahead.
Comm. Behnke believed that the city needs to do whatever it takes to help those in education in our community. He stated that he would be supporting the ordinance and asked the public to keep the Commission informed
regarding the implementation of the ordinance. Comm. Hersha stated he still has the same concerns. He agreed with those who say that we are leaving a lot of children behind in this country. This is a problem for families of Battle Creek not only now, but for generations to come. We owe it to ourselves to do everything we can to intervene when we can. Therefore, he
would be supporting the ordinance and thanked everyone for sharing their viewpoints.
Comm. Bilbia expressed that he would not be supporting the ordinance. He felt that money would be better spent if it was given to the schools to hire a truant officer. The police department has too much to do without handling juveniles.
Vice Mayor Walker thanked everyone for their very considerate views on this issue.
VOTE: Yes – 7
No – 1 (Comm. Bilbia)
Ordinance 20-04 carried. |
|
|
|
Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:10 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
fascinating arguments for and against the truancy ordinance.
Yes it was. |
|
|
|
Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:20 pm |
|
|
John Wilson
F L I N T O I D
|
| Ted Jankowski: 233 words per minute speed reader. |
|
|
|
Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:29 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
So what are you trying to say?
 |
|
|
|
Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:04 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
| Tell ya what I really liked was how the minutes actually reflected what was dicussed. Who said what! |
|
|
|
Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:06 am |
|
|
DELETED
Guest
|
| DELETED |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:19 am |
|
|
DELETED
Guest
|
| DELETED |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:31 am |
|
|
Biggie9
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Larry schreef:
HEY WE COULD LEED THE NATION WITH THIS POLICY
AND BUILD THE CAMARAS IN FLINT WIN WIN JOBS EDUCATION GOOD SOCIAL
INTERACTION COMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
LETS SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE TEAR THIS IDEA UP
don't know if I'm tearing the idea up or down, Larry.
And I'm not conversant with the details of the policy.
BUT.
I'd recommend Bob Leonard's last show on this topic [dec 12th, IIRC]. he discusses this ordinance and points out some of the flaws with its construction and conflicts vis a vis state law; too general wording [about the curfew in effect even when school isn't in session].
Are these problems addressed? i don't know. |
_________________
Biggie |
|
|
Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:46 am |
|
|
pissed off ma ma bear
Guest
|
| You know the City schools have always sucked,,,I went to Freeman , McKinley and then on to what was Called Southwestern high,,,spent the 60s and the 70s in Flint community schools, I always loved ART,,,wanted to excell by taking Art classes,,,but everytime I signed up,,,the classes were strangely full,,,,and always full of the teachers PETS,,,,so the last time I can remember having ARt was in 6th grade,,,I hated Flint Schools , that is why we got out,,,they sucked then, they suck now, know wonder kids dont like school, Hell I skipped a month of school before Flint contacted my parents in the 70s,,,thats how bad they were and they still are, the teachers and Administrations and the parents need to be held accountable,,,Parents should be punished if they know that thier child is not attending,,,and how are they to know it the school does not contact them. |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:58 pm |
|
|
rapunzel
Guest
|
I would like to read the ordinance. I believe it is a start.
We do not have enough law enforcement to follow thru. We need school officials to step up to the table. In school suspensions and a detention office for officers to drop the picked up students off and the schools to do the paperwork.
Can not educate students if they are not in school. See how many in the county jail have a fifth grade education. If we want children to succeed, enter a college, get a career, we have to take strong measures.
Crime and jail is the other income alternative.
We may need to tweek the ordinance, but it is a start that I applaud.
Let the community support, modify and make this ordinance work for students and parents.
Bring all to the table and hold all accountable. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:56 am |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
Anyone interested in the substance of the curfew resolution and related ordinances should read Chapter 31 related subsections as it exists now. http://tinyurl.com/y6zqgy IMHO the entire chapter should be reorganized and rewritten for clarity. There's too much room for confusion as it stands and will only add more when the new curfew sections are added.
Existing 31-5.4 (i) and (ii) reference parental responsibility but, (iii) states any person in violation of 31-5.1 through 31-5.3 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be ordered to perform 16 hours of community service and, in addition, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $500 or 90 days in jail, or both fine and jail in the discretion of the court.
[00SL2 comment: Are we to assume that the "anyone" in (iii) applies only to parents because of the way (i) and (ii) are written, and if so does 31-10 cover the rest?]
31-10 Same -- Persons 17 or Over Abiding(sic) or Abetting Violations. Any person 17 years of age or older, who assists, aids or abets, allows, permits or encourages any minor under the age of 17 years to violate the Flint City Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
[00SL2 comment: 31-10 should include the same penalty as the current 31-5.4(iii).]
Does anyone have the 063196 proposed language for 31-5.4 Truancy?
Rapunzul, is the 31-5.5 you're quoting part of the proposed section you said is in the newspaper but not online? |
|
|
|
Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:53 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
We do not have enough law enforcement to follow thru. We need school officials to step up to the table. In school suspensions and a detention office for officers to drop the picked up students off and the schools to do the paperwork.
So what is the punishment of not going to school?
Where do we put these kids? Do we force parents to give p parental rights of thier children because they cannot control them?
Just some details I'm wonding about. |
|
|
|
Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:44 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
Ted wrote:
"So what is the punishment of not going to school?"
"Where do we put these kids? Do we force parents to give p parental rights of thier children because they cannot control them?"
On Newsmaker with Michael J.Thorpe, Judge Beagle was talking about a Truancy Court. My guess is that he would inquire about the home situation, the student's reason for not attending, get student and parent involved in appropriate programs and put them on probation until the situation improved. I doubt truancy would lead to termination of parental rights; if the kid is incorrigible--not just truancy problems--and all other corrective efforts fail, the Judge might give him time at an institution like boot camp. Termination of parental rights are more for severe neglect or abuse cases where the parent is the perpetrator.
I like the NEA's 12-Point Plan to reduce the high school dropout rate. Here are some of the titles, details and link below:
#1 "Mandate high school graduation or equivalency as compulsory for everyone below the age of 21."
#6 "Act early so students do not drop out .. ."
#10 "Involve the entire community in dropout prevention . .."
NEA's Plan for Reducing School Dropouts
http://www.nea.org/presscenter/actionplan1.html
We'd need to get our legislators involved to change the compulsory graduation or equivalency. On the Fast Track!! |
|
|
|
Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:11 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Open chat
