“This is the same church that until 1978 preached that anyone with African blood was of the "marked race of Cain." Then, reportedly, God had a little private conversation with the Church President and this doctrine was changed. Isn't it about time for another little private conversation?”
“This approach is entirely unconstitutional. The school district only has authority over situations where there has been, or are very good reasons to predict there will be, a substantial disruption at school. Further, the search standard if there is an intent to had devices over to law enforcement should be probable cause - with a search warrant or informed consent. Outrageous!!!”
MrSavage on Aug 3, 2012 at 03:41:33
“If you let them have rights as kids they might demand them as adults. That would sort of defeat the purpose of modern schooling in the first place.”
“This situation is really hypocritical. How come Gingrich is being criticized for going negative - when this is in response for Romney and crew's vicious attacks on Gingrich? Who started the recent viciousness, Romney or Gingrich? Indeed Romney has a better facade. He strives to keep himself clean and let those working for him do the dirty work.”
“I have been investigating a situation in our local school - and have the police and school reports to do this.
In this situation, when the student was suspected of smoking pot at school, the assistant principal asked for the help of the school resource officer. The SRO spoke with the student, in a custodial situation. The SRO did not provide a Miranda warning. Also the district policy states that the parent should be called prior to an investigation of a student who has become a focal point of a crime. The parent had not been called.
The assistant principal asked to have the student's backpack, because he said he had reasonable suspicion to search (the legal standard for school officials). The student refused consent. The SRO then demanded that the student hand over his backpack - stating this was because the assistant principal had reasonable suspicion to search. When a police officer intends to search the standard is probable cause - and exigent circumstances, a search warrant issued by a judge, or informed consent. The student refused consent - passively resisting.
The SRO then arrested the student for Interference with a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest - both of which do not cover situations where a person is being passively resistant.
It is my strong suspicion that the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of students are very frequently ignored when SROs are functioning in schools. And that this is not challenged properly by defense attorneys.”
Ariel Bonzai on Dec 21, 2011 at 05:56:46
“I know they are. They have no first amendment rights either.jury is still out on the second.”
The Dude67 on Dec 20, 2011 at 13:17:07
“Our public school system is primarily in place to brainwash our kids with Skinnerian / Pavlovian style stimulus response / reasoning. Logic has no place here.”
garystartswithg on Dec 20, 2011 at 13:12:43
“Students don't have constitutional rights -- its frequently accepted in adult courts that students at school are stripped of rights -- the silent generation/boomers have passed a billion little highly unconstitutional laws to legislate the behavior of gen x, gen y starting with raising the drinking age in 1981, increased litigation in the war on drugs, etc. the war on drugs is generational warfare. None of my older friends have their cars searched when they are pulled over, if you are younger you accept it as part of life.”
Aug 20, 2012 at 10:43:51
UK Universities & Education
“I totally, totally, totally laud Emily for wanting to do something positive. Unfortunately, she has picked up on two really hurtful things that adults are doing - and shouldn't.
1. While there are some linkages between bullying and suicide, it is inaccurate and dangerous to spread the message that bullying caused suicide. A decision to suicide is the result of many factors. Bullying may be one of these factors and a bullying incident can be a trigger. But if we say "bullying caused suicide," what we are also saying is "if you are being bullied, suicide is an option you should consider." This message could lead to copy-cat suicides. Also, the "bullying caused suicide" message can cause substantial emotional harm to other youth who are then viciously blamed for a young person's suicide. We need to stop this dangerous messaging.
2. The term "bully" should be used as a verb, not a noun. If we label someone a "bully," we are engaging in hurtful behavior. Our focus needs to be on stopping "bullying" (the behavior).
Emily is not to blame for these mistakes. Too many well-meaning adults are making mistakes that she is simply following.”
silkie-sea on Aug 20, 2012 at 14:41:04
“Can you expand on why there is a problem with identifying bullying as the factor that often pushes a vulnerable person to commit suicide? With the number of children in the US committing suicide having been relentlessly bullied for their sexual orientation, I'm a bit at a loss as to what other immediate factor is to blame for driving them to that?
On the verb/noun issue: again, a bit odd. If someone beats their partner up, do you simply condemn domestic abuse and neglect to mention to man beating on his wife - out of fear of causing 'substantial emotional harm' to the person engaging in that behaviour?
I agree, it doesn't do much good to make a monster out of the kid who is bullying. But to go to some lengths to shield these kids from the direct result of what they're doing because you don't want to upset them - well, what about the kid who goes home to cry every night after school? The struggle should surely focus on getting the bully to recognise that that is what they are when they do this stuff, and to encourage them to make the choice the throw that title off.”
“Here is what I take issue with in this commentary: "To hear Gingrich attack Romney for paying an income tax rate of 15 percent, one forgets for a moment that there is no hint of impropriety in Romney's tax returns. It is all legal. He paid what he owed. He did not write the tax code. He never served in Congress, and thus cannot even be accused of sanctioning those inequities."
I have seen the clip where Romney is criticizing the poor because they do not pay taxes. There is no hint of impropriety in this either. It is all legal. So if it is okay for Romney to criticize people who are barely making ends meet, it is most certainly appropriate to criticize Romney.
Second, several years ago there was an effort to increase the tax rate for equity investments - led by Senator Grassley (R). This was defeated by a massive lobbying campaign by an organization that Bain Capital was heavily involved in. So, yes, Romney was not in Congress. But clearly he and his compatriots were actively involved in defeating this legislation - that would have taxed his income at a more reasonable and fair rate.
So yeah, rah, first time I have ever agreed with Newt on anything!”
“Suicide contagion is a very real concern. Messaging like this can cause young people who are being bullied to think that suicide is a response they should consider. And the consequences of this can be very grievous.
Also, it is not helpful to villainize those who engage in bullying. Often these are socially marginalized youth who are fighting back against a social culture that has excluded them. Often they are the victims of violence, including family violence. Youth who engage in bullying also have higher rates of suicide ideation.
We will not increase youth reporting to adults until adults respond more effectively. The Youth Voice Project found that only 42% of students who were bullied reported to a school official -- and only 34% of the time did things get better. 29% of the time, reporting to an adult made things worse.
In most, if not all, of these youth suicide situations, adults knew and failed to effectively stop the bullying. So what caused the suicide? The bullying? Or the feeling of helplessness because adults were not effective in stopping the bullying?
There are better ways to proceed. We need to focus attention on how people who witness harmful interactions can be helpful - by providing emotional support to the person targeted, saying stop to the person engaging in harm, and reporting serious or unresolved concerns to adults. And we need to encourage restorative, not punitive, interventions that support all young people.”
JAN KULCZYCKI on Nov 2, 2011 at 19:41:54
“Of all the bullies I have observed in my 38 years of teaching, only a few were disadvantaged youth. Most had soccer moms, and powerful dads. They didn't react well to criticism of their kid's behaviour. Actually, at one time I got threatened with getting fired because I reported a kid whose dad regularly played golf with my principal.”
berlytowns on Oct 31, 2011 at 21:02:05
“You are leaving the responsibility to everyone EXCEPT the one being bullied. Why is that? You are giving the power to the adults, the bullies, and the bystanders, but you are not addressing the most important place where responsibility belongs: SQUARE IN THE LAP OF THOSE BEING BULLIED.
It is a crime to raise kids to continually believe they are victims. They need to learn to take control of those situations and rise above the bully. Those kids who you teach to be victims will be adults one day who will need the skills to handle not so friendly people in all walks of life. It is not going to be appropriate for them to run to others when someone picks on the as adults. They should be equipped to handle them on their own, and they can't if they have always been taught they are victims and someone else should take care of their problems.”
“Actually Hlynn, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of school response to student off-campus behavior. The case that came closest was Frederick v Morse. But the court quite clearly stated that the considered this speech to have taken part in the context of school activities.
The legal standard that has been clearly enunciated by various lower courts is that school officials can formally respond in situations where student's off-campus speech has, or there are really good reasons to believe it could, cause a substantial disruption at school. Various cases that have interpreted the "substantial disruption" standard have upheld school response if there was a potential of violence, if another student would be deprived of the right to receive an education, or situations involving overall disruption of the delivery of instruction or school operations.
School officials do not have the authority to respond if the intent is to inculcate values. When students are off-campus, parents are the ones responsible for inculcating values.
The ruling in this decision was very appropriate.”
“There are concerns about school staff/student communications within social interaction environments such as Facebook. Unfortunately, this provision was in a bill related to school staff sexual abuse so this painted a picture of concerns of inappropriate sexual communications. The other concerns include:
Perception of grading bias if some students friend a teacher and others do not.
Inappropriate pressure on students by teachers who send them a friendship request they do not want to accept.
Disclosure of student personal information within the context of these communications, in violation of the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Increased requirements on school staff to monitor student postings and messages for instances indicting abuse, which if present and not reported could create problems for the school staff.
Setting up situations where students could then be introduced to the teacher's adult friends, who might not be safe.
It is essential that schools set up interactive learning environments to support 21st century learning that function like Facebook and Google+. These environments, like EPals and Edmoto, are designed to facilitate ongoing communications, including private communications between students and teachers, but are an educational, not social, environment. Everything the teachers in this article mentioned they want to do can be done within a more secure interactive instructional environment.”
Gwenhevare on Aug 7, 2011 at 11:39:02
“Exactly! I enjoy teaching, I love interacting with my students, discussing things with them, I want to know their problems but they have no need to be able to see into my private life. There's a line. Give me a school tool to do what Facebook does and I will gladly use it, but 'friending' a student sends the wrong message.”
“The National Campaign data has questionable validity. This was a survey conducted by their public relation's company, TRU. Their press release states: "Respondents do not constitute a probability sample."
More accurate data is from the Pew Internet and American Life project. They found only 4% of teens had sent nude or nearly nude images.
Suspensions are not the way to effectively deal with these situations.”
2Start1 on Jul 12, 2011 at 19:29:00
“Parents need to start teaching their kids what is socially acceptable behavior.”
“I strongly encourage people to read the 13 criticisms - which are TOTALLY grounded. I strongly encourage NEA to withhold any endorsement of Obama until he requests the resignation of Duncan. This man is destroying education.
Race for the Top is nothing more than Race to the Public Funding Trough for testing companies and charter schools. It is destroying public education. It is far past time for this to end.”
Hlynn on Jul 3, 2011 at 13:07:29
“Obama supports what Duncan is doing They both need to go.”
“It would help if you reported accurately. This is the specific provision of the statute:
(15) Students shall be prohibited from accessing social networking sites at school, except
for educational or instructional purposes and with the prior approval from school administration.
Nothing in this act shall prohibit students from using school department or school websites for
educational purposes. School districts and schools are encouraged to provide in-service training
on Internet safety for students, faculty and staff.
This is a common sense "instructional purpose" restriction. The unfortunate "squishy" part is whether this also covers student use of personal mobile devices while in school, but not in the classroom. Also, the administrative approval if a requirement for every use would be overly burdensome. But schools can address this with a policy that outlines when access to resources on a social networking site are permissible.
How many employers have restrictions for use of social media for non-work purposes? This is no different.
Instructional activities - such as classroom instruction - should not occur on sites such as Facebook - which has been established for "socializing." Facebook's philosophy is that privacy is no longer a social norm. For educators, protecting student privacy is a legal obligation. There are excellent social media environments that support high quality instructional activities. Under the language of the statute, these sites would be considered school sites.”
“Race to the Top should be renamed Race to the Public Feeding Trough. Its sole beneficiaries are testing companies and private charter schools. How do we pressure Obama to get rid of this guy?”
Righteous Fury on Jul 1, 2011 at 18:56:27
“Family friend. He'll never fire him. Duncan's wife even taught Obama's girls when they went to school in Chicago.”
sbyvssby on Jul 1, 2011 at 18:50:59
“Race to the Top is a guessing game. Whatever state can guess what the DoEd guys want to hear get a federal grant.
Private and charter schools aren't inherently worse than public ed. In fact I don't think we'd have public ed at all if the parents of the kids who went to private school could opt out of paying the taxes for public ed (not just credits redeemable at tax season, but actually opt out).”
Both Microsoft and the ABA were very well intended - and fully meet the guidelines you set out above. They also had involved other organizations that should have demonstrated expertise. And yet the result was really bad - and simply should be trashed. A waste of well-intentioned time and resources.
So, additionally it is necessary to have a process in place that will ensure that joint ventures or corporate-funded approaches are effective. I believe this requires:
The development of a plan that identifies the research and effective risk prevention practices the project is build on - and a plan for how the project will pilot test the materials and evaluate effectiveness, plus a longer term evaluation plan.
Blind review of this plan by professionals in the field.”
“If WWF and GLAAD want to collaborate to address bullying, I think I am all for that - especially if this is going to result in anti-bullying messages directed at WWF viewers that address anti-gay-bashing. Quite frankly, my potentially highly biased opinion is that the standard WWF crowd could use some sensitivity building in that arena.
So a "positive norms" approach indicating that WWF-folks do not bully people based on sexual orientation could actually be welcome. And if GLAAD wants to encourage its members to embrace WWF - well, I guess I am not all that concerned.
It is NEA's involvement that concerns me - because it would seem that this would lead to WWF-based materials coming into schools with an NEA endorsement. This would be more akin to market promotion of WWF to school age kids. The infinitesimal possible value of an anti-bullying message in the context of promotion of WWF-staged bullying-is-entertaining is where the incongruity appears to lie.”