Wrong Approach To Good Destination

For the want of ice cream, a curious requirement for federal school funding has come to light.

We learned about Title I’s “home-school compact” because a Coeur d’Alene kindergartener was denied a treat given to all her classmates. Bryan School offered ice cream as an incentive for students to get their parents to sign the contract.

The little girl’s father refused to comply.

The lone holdout didn’t disagree with the federal program’s goals - to improve the reading and math skills of children in poor neighborhoods. He simply didn’t think the federal government should tell him how to run his family.

Although his paranoia toward Big Brotherism is troubling, this father makes a point. Parents should be urged to take an active role in their children’s schooling, not forced by government contract to do so.

For all that it had good intentions, the 1994 Congress went too far when it inserted the written agreements into the Title I program. The contract requirement should be removed. Or a provision should be added for parents who agree with the concept but don’t want to sign anything.

The contract terms aren’t oppressive.

To receive funding, principals, teachers, parents and children must agree in writing to meet certain standards. Teachers are to communicate with parents and be aware of their students’ needs. Students are to come to school ready to learn and to conduct themselves properly.

For their part, parents agree to review their children’s assignments, attend school functions, establish a time and a place for homework, encourage daily reading time and make sure their kids get enough sleep. Most parents don’t need prodding to do these things; they’d sign the contract without hesitation.

Most, but not all.

The contracts are viewed with suspicion in antigovernment areas like the Inland Northwest. Several parents in the Coeur d’Alene School District complained about them.

Ironically, the school officials who sent the document home agreed with the dissenting father that it was a bad idea. Said Principal John House of Bryan School: “You spend 24 hours a day trying to cement the relationship between neighborhood schools and parents, and then you have to send out something like this that says maybe somebody’s questioning your judgment. That’s alienating people.”

Principal Bob Shamberg of Sorensen School shares House’s enthusiasm for the program and wariness of the contract.

“The purpose is good,” Shamberg said. “It says, ‘Let’s work together; you do your part and we’ll do ours.’ But when you send a piece of paper home, it comes across as legalistic and Big Brotherish.”

Shamberg hasn’t sent out the contracts to Sorensen parents. When he does, he must protect students from the crossfire between their parents and government intruders. If that’s not possible, he should make sure all children share any treats offered as rewards.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = D.F. Oliveria For the editorial board