(09-17-2014 01:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 01:40 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  These rules didn't pop up overnight. They were added to a school board calendar and notice given for open comment period. These rules or guiding principles are passed in open sessions. The problem is that many people do not get entirely involved in their children's school district. Many people pretend that their city council and school board are not elected and hold open meetings. Then we have "complaints" when these types of situations come about. People need to get engaged in their kids' schools or they'll get the schools they deserve.

I'm all in favor of parents getting involved in their kids' schools. But -- IMHO -- it is not right for a school paid for and sustained with taxpayers' money to effectively tell a presumptive taxpayer (i.e., a parent/guardian) "Don't complain that your little angel got shafted by our Zero Tolerance policy. You skipped the PTA meetings, so we don't give a sh*t if you like it or not."

And besides, even if the parent had gone to every Parents' meeting and every School Board meeting and every whatever-other-kind of meeting, that still would not be a reliable safeguard against unreasonable enforcement of unreasonable "rules or guiding principles."

Without knowing the facts, you don't know if the decision was unreasonable or if the little angel was "shafted" by a policy that could suspend a child for as little as one day or 180 days. All that we have is the father's statement. The school is silenced due to the education privacy rights of the student.

Regardless, people always have the courts as a safeguard against any unconstitutional rules of the school. But, there is nothing "unconstitutional" here -- reasonable people just choose to disagree. This is a policy implemented by the school board, which was elected by the citizens of this area, and voted on in public. If people are outraged, they should go to the School Board and either have the policy adjusted or rescinded. If people do not like the rules of their schools, they can home-school or go to a private or alternative school, where like-minded individuals can implement their own rules.

Personally, I think 180 days for 1st time, small-quantity drug possession is a bit stiff. But, I don't know if that is as simple as it was or if she was doing much more than that.

(09-17-2014 02:19 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Without knowing the facts, you don't know if the decision was unreasonable or if the little angel was "shafted" by a policy that could suspend a child for as little as one day or 180 days. All that we have is the father's statement. The school is silenced due to the education privacy rights of the student.

True. But my response to your post (and I admit I did not make this clear) was not made in regards to this particular case. I just meant in general -- and in general I believe the situation I described is both true and recurring on a regular basis throughout the country. If you don't agree with me, I respect that, but let's at least be clear what we're disagreeing about. I join you in being very, very suspicious of the father's public statements in this matter about the marijuana-diary, or whatever it was.

Quote:Regardless, people always have the courts as a safeguard against any unconstitutional rules of the school.

Somehow, I find that less-than-reassuring. (Anyone here in SpinRoom-Land ever litigated a lawsuit against a public school? Know anyone who has? C'mon, speak up!)

Quote:But, there is nothing "unconstitutional" here -- reasonable people just choose to disagree.

I don't allege anything "unconstitutional" here. What I allege is that mere constitutionality is not (or rather, should not be) a sufficient threshold for determining the wisdom of school-discipline, and in fact a majority-vote at a PTA meeting isn't either. Which is why I advocate Separation of School and State, so that (in your words) "like-minded individuals" can more easily and readily organize the education of their own children along terms that they personally approve.

Quote:If people do not like the rules of their schools, they can home-school or go to a private or alternative school, where like-minded individuals can implement their own rules.

That's true, people "can" do as you suggest. But in most of the United States, "can" is at the top of a very steep, very expensive, and very treacherous mountain, and any attempt to make the climb a little easier is reliably opposed by the "Educators" and their allies, who don't want -- ideally -- any other options on the table besides beloved P.S. 33, but -- failing that -- will settle for regulating home-schools to the point of exhaustion and opposing any kind of tax-break or voucher for private schools' tuition. I understand a lot of people are okay with that. I'm just not one of them.

(09-17-2014 02:46 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 02:19 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Without knowing the facts, you don't know if the decision was unreasonable or if the little angel was "shafted" by a policy that could suspend a child for as little as one day or 180 days. All that we have is the father's statement. The school is silenced due to the education privacy rights of the student.

True. But my response to your post (and I admit I did not make this clear) was not made in regards to this particular case. I just meant in general -- and in general I believe the situation I described is both true and recurring on a regular basis throughout the country. If you don't agree with me, I respect that, but let's at least be clear what we're disagreeing about. I join you in being very, very suspicious of the father's public statements in this matter about the marijuana-diary, or whatever it was.

I am only speaking to this incident. I think overall, some of the school policies have gone a bit too far and probably should be stepped back. However, in this incident, I have a gut feeling that there is more to the story and she probably got what she deserved.

Quote:

Quote:Regardless, people always have the courts as a safeguard against any unconstitutional rules of the school.

Somehow, I find that less-than-reassuring. (Anyone here in SpinRoom-Land ever litigated a lawsuit against a public school? Know anyone who has? C'mon, speak up!)

You can fight the school if you have a legal basis to do so. The majority of people do not. The best way to influence the school is through the electoral process. Liberals have been doing this for years.

Quote:

Quote:But, there is nothing "unconstitutional" here -- reasonable people just choose to disagree.

I don't allege anything "unconstitutional" here. What I allege is that mere constitutionality is not (or rather, should not be) a sufficient threshold for determining the wisdom of school-discipline, and in fact a majority-vote at a PTA meeting isn't either. Which is why I advocate Separation of School and State, so that (in your words) "like-minded individuals" can more easily and readily organize the education of their own children along terms that they personally approve.

Quote:If people do not like the rules of their schools, they can home-school or go to a private or alternative school, where like-minded individuals can implement their own rules.

That's true, people "can" do as you suggest. But in most of the United States, "can" is at the top of a very steep, very expensive, and very treacherous mountain, and any attempt to make the climb a little easier is reliably opposed by the "Educators" and their allies, who don't want -- ideally -- any other options on the table besides beloved P.S. 33, but -- failing that -- will settle for regulating home-schools to the point of exhaustion and opposing any kind of tax-break or voucher for private schools' tuition. I understand a lot of people are okay with that. I'm just not one of them.

The wisdom of decisions is determined by the district. For this district, this is a wise policy...for other people perhaps not. But, this is why elections matter. Ours is a society of laws and this is legal. In order to effect change, we have to vote these people out. The problem is that not enough people are motivated to do this, especially in big cities where the liberals and the union control things (that's why I wouldn't live in a BIG city and send my kids to public school). And, not every alternative/private school super expensive. But, it might cost you something to get what you want.

(09-17-2014 10:36 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Reporting it and suspending her for an entire academic year are two entirely different issues, Fit.

They have no proof (other than the article that says the girl confessed to swallowing drugs?) that the girl had any drugs in her possession? If the article about the confession is true (and If it's not just a story made up by the school officials to cover their asses), then the school has something to back up their actions. But otherwise, they went too far in their response.

I agree the punishment is too long. I was simply commenting on the why.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-17-2014 09:15 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Once again a slam dunk. School officials have to report incidents like this and they must take action. It's legally CYA.

If this kid gets an overdose and it is later found out that they knew of the diary and did nothing, the school could be held liable.

Never mind that pesky Constitution. Fck the 1st and 4th amendments. Covering some fcking school bureaucrats is more important than that!!

There is precedent for stuff like this. The protection of the child comes before her protection of privacy.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App