"They"

[DaveS]

A parent was shown on a local TV news-piece here, blaming the school.

Oh, ok... so a different video from this one? Because in the video linked to this article, nobody blamed the school.

As I said before: one lady said "they need to do something about this", and then her sentence was clipped, they inserted some additional stuff, and closed with her saying something like "this is scary, where are the parents?". I am sure that it all came out of her mouth in one paragraph.

Interpreting anyone in this particular video as "blaming the schools" is a stretch.

[crokett]

Interpreting anyone in this particular video as "blaming the schools" is a stretch.

I disagree. At the 1:20 mark she says "this is happening at all the schools so they need to do something about it." I am pretty sure in this context that the 'they' is in reference to the school system.

[430752]

To play devils' advocate:

hmmm...schools aren't supposed to raise kids, parents are.

I agree, but do you?

If you do, then you surely voted down the various (and rapidly) growing school initiatives which test kids for drug use? I mean, if the kids get high out of school and show up for sports the next day, it isn't the school's concern right, becuase schools aren't supposed to raise kids. (Of course, if the kid actually shows up high/drunk, that's different, but since THC has a half life of 28 days, kid coulda smoked a fatty days earlier with no connection to school, and it shouldn't be school's concern otherwise).

You voted that down right?

[radhak]

To play devils' advocate:

hmmm...schools aren't supposed to raise kids, parents are.

I agree, but do you?

If you do, then you surely voted down the various (and rapidly) growing school initiatives which test kids for drug use? I mean, if the kids get high out of school and show up for sports the next day, it isn't the school's concern right, becuase schools aren't supposed to raise kids. (Of course, if the kid actually shows up high/drunk, that's different, but since THC has a half life of 28 days, kid coulda smoked a fatty days earlier with no connection to school, and it shouldn't be school's concern otherwise).

You voted that down right?

Absolutely. Yes. Drug consumption by students away from school should not be the school's responsibility.

Don't see any reason the school should be concerned, just as much as the school should not be concerned if a student had sex, or had too much to eat. Out of school, of course. Already schools have too much to shoulder - check if kids are bringing healthy lunch from home ( ); check if the bruise on their arm is legitimate accident ( a concerned teacher raising an issue is one thing; that said teacher held accountable to report it is overstepping it; but who's listening to me ), etc.

I did not see the vote you mentioned, but cannot imagine it came to a vote at all. But your post has a nuance to it : if the kid is participating in competitive sports and drug is detected, it does become the school's problem to handle : under the sporting banner. So should they test - again, absolutely.

I don't see the devil in this - common sense is easy; it just gets hidden in all the rules we keep trying to tie ourselves up into.

[JR]

I mean, if the kids get high out of school and show up for sports the next day, it isn't the school's concern right, becuase schools aren't supposed to raise kids. (Of course, if the kid actually shows up high/drunk, that's different, but since THC has a half life of 28 days, kid coulda smoked a fatty days earlier with no connection to school, and it shouldn't be school's concern otherwise).

Absolutely. Yes. Drug consumption by students away from school should not be the school's responsibility.

If the issue is drugs and students, that's one thing. If it's drugs and athletes, it's another.

I can see the rationale for testing athletes. Top athlete's are using performance-enhancing drugs in ways which are not tested and side-effects are unknown. If they're doing it, so will the kids. Leaving the cheating argument aside, there is a safety argument that shouldn't be ignored.

The fly in the ointment is that the US Anti-Doping Agency, the preeminent American group with responsibility for establishing and maintaining the list of banned performance-enhancing drugs, has marijuana on the banned list. A school district either has to go with the USADA recommendations, the path of least resistance, or develop their own recommendations, the path least likely to be followed.

JR

[DaveS]

I disagree. At the 1:20 mark she says "this is happening at all the schools so they need to do something about it." I am pretty sure in this context that the 'they' is in reference to the school system.

Ok... I'll buy that. I missed the "so".

Even then, I didn't interpret that as "blame".

I guess it depends where you are coming from.

[jking]

Sign of the times, methinks... Typical interaction between kids in school and 2 working parents is maybe 20 minutes/day. Hard to teach them much about how to act in 20 minutes.

Agreed. Except this isn't a new sign.

It's hard enough to teach your kids how to act with one parent at home all day.

[Alex Franke]

Kids are required to go to school, and as a result the government has an obligation to make every reasonable effort to keep them safe.

And regardless of how good a parent you are, some kids are just going to go haywire and screw up. Sure, the parents have a lot to do with the constitution of a child, but at some point you can't really blame them either. Kids have minds of their own and they're exposed to *so much more* over-the-line cr*p now-a-days, that even a mindful parent can be shocked.

Case in point: I have the v-chip in my TV set up to block everything except G rated programming. Well, I guess the news is G rated because my boy managed to catch a few seconds of rather senseless, violent, and disturbing footage the other day just by accidentally sitting on the remote.

I really do think kids are getting desensitized to violence. The games and programming are a part of it, but they're missing part of the equation -- I'd probably end up under the microscope if I taught my kids the vocabulary of gun safety.

If my child got drugs at school or got beat up, or anything like that, and if I found that the school had not made a reasonable effort to prevent it, then I would in part blame the school. I would also blame the parents of the other kid, but I would put most of the blame squarely on the kid that did the damage.

A Jr High Teacher in SC was fired for tapping a student on the shoulder and asking them to go to the office.

Corporal punishment in schools is alive and well here in NC...

[crokett]

The school cannot be held responsible for what a student does outside of school hours. That said, if the student is an athlete and comes to school with evidence of drug use in their system, that student should be disciplined. Drug use only hurts athletic performance.

The school should make a reasonable effort to keep students safe, yes. That said should the school have forseen a seven year old robbing another student with a butter knife? What do we do now, ban table knives at elementary schools?

[Alex Franke]

That said should the school have forseen a seven year old robbing another student with a butter knife? What do we do now, ban table knives at elementary schools?

Depends on this kid's history, I guess. I think the school probably acted appropriately in this case -- sounds like he probably had other problems or incidents, too.

I agree with you on the "reasonable effort" bit. I think taking away all the table knives would be a bit unreasonable... As I recall they never really cut very well anyway

[paintandbodtman]

Corporal punishment in schools is alive and well here in NC...

Corporal punishment is not illegal in NC but most school systems won't let teachers use it for fear of lawsuit. When I taught I had a one million liability professional rider on my homeowners policy and it covered corporal punishment in case of lawsuit but the school system would'nt allow it.It may have changed since I left the school system 5 years ago but I doubt it.
My principal and I had a conversation regarding a couple students I sent to the office once, to make a long story short he commented that kids had'nt changed that much since I was that age and he bet whatever the teacher did to get my attention when I was that age would work on the kids today. My response was yes sir I got my a$$ tore up when I acted that way and it got my attention for a while and you are right it would work with these kids today. His response was this conversation is over and he proceded to get up and leave the room.
When I resigned and I did my exit interview I allowed that with all of the doctoral degrees in education that someone should do their dissertation on societies ills from adolescence to mid to late 20's 50 years ago when we held all ages accountable for their bad judgement vs today when we just slap them on the wrist and asked them to please don't do that again I think we would come to the conclusion that todays way is'nt working.

Wayne