"Judge stops school from expelling girl who refused to wear tracking device"

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

They were responsible for us 40+ years ago when I was going to school. Sometimes kids skipped classes or school period but we got by perfectly okay without being monitored all the time. I feel certain they still can.

Ok, so you don't buy the benefit, some do...what's the harm?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Ok, so you don't buy the benefit, some do...what's the harm?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

My biggest complaint is it is I see it as one more encroachment on our freedoms. There has to be a point where the costs outweigh the benefits.

[WESGATORS]

I don't think children have a reasonable expectation of freedom while on school property (see my list of restrictions I mentioned in post #19). I do think cost is a valid concern, but that's an issue for those providing revenue to the district.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Just another reason for the growing number of children that are home schooled.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Just another reason for the growing number of children that are home schooled.

My brother home schools. Those kids have even less freedom.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I don't think children have a reasonable expectation of freedom while on school property (see my list of restrictions I mentioned in post #19). I do think cost is a valid concern, but that's an issue for those providing revenue to the district.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I disagree. Just because you go to school does not mean you forfeit all freedoms. Perhaps you have to submit to certain restrictions but in this case I see it as going too far.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

My brother home schools. Those kids have even less freedom.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Perhaps. But if that is true, then it is the parents making the decisions, not bureaucrats.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I don't think children have a reasonable expectation of freedom while on school property (see my list of restrictions I mentioned in post #19). I do think cost is a valid concern, but that's an issue for those providing revenue to the district.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

School property? SCHOOL PROPERTY?

From where did the funds come from to buy that property? To build it? To maintain it?

The parents of the students supplied the money.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

I disagree. Just because you go to school does not mean you forfeit all freedoms. Perhaps you have to submit to certain restrictions but in this case I see it as going too far.

Where did the notion come from that children are supposed to have freedom outside of the freedom designated by their parents? If a parent sends a child to school that imposes such restrictions, then they are necessarily condoning the restrictions that are in place. Theoretically, parents are the ones driving how the school board operates. Or are we to believe that the world is full of apathetic individuals who do not reach out to their government representatives and only wish or vent on message boards that things might be different...ok, I can buy that.

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Perhaps. But if that is true, then it is the parents making the decisions, not bureaucrats.

Parents should be driving the decisions made by the "bureaucrats." This is much easier to accomplish at the county level than at the Federal level. Whenever the politicians are being blamed (especially at the lower levels) you have to look at the people who provide the influence (or lack thereof).

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

School property? SCHOOL PROPERTY?

From where did the funds come from to buy that property? To build it? To maintain it?

The parents of the students supplied the money.

Well, presumably it's in a district that neither you or I are contributors toward, but we are free to opine on what they are doing right or wrong. The funds come from the same people who permit the rules to be in place, if they don't like the rules, then they should press for the rules to be changed. But if they do like the rules, then shouldn't they be entitled to allow them to remain?

--------------------------

I still haven't seen anybody express tangible damages. To me, this is victimless paranoia. So the school knows where you are, why does that matter? If anything it offers protection against false accusations.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[The_Ultimate_Gator]

Originally Posted by gatorlaw71

Hardly.

From the mid-1600s, the Massachusetts Bay Colony required every town of 50 families to have a school.

So? John Jay was from New York.

When the Continental Congress passed the law providing for survey and settlement of Northwest Territories (the midwest today), it reserved a portion of land in each township for a township school.

So? Jay was not a member of the Continental Congress when it passed that law (I assume you're talking about the Land Ordinance of 1785).

I have no idea what Jay thought of government schools.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Parents should be driving the decisions made by the "bureaucrats." This is much easier to accomplish at the county level than at the Federal level. Whenever the politicians are being blamed (especially at the lower levels) you have to look at the people who provide the influence (or lack thereof).

Bit of a straw man here. "Hey just be glad schools are not federally controlled!"

This does not justify requiring children to wear tracking devices.

But if they do like the rules, then shouldn't they be entitled to allow them to remain?

In case you aren't keeping up with current events, this is exactly what is happening

I still haven't seen anybody express tangible damages.

You mean, other than violating the student 14th amendment rights and probably the 9th?

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Where did the notion come from that children are supposed to have freedom outside of the freedom designated by their parents? If a parent sends a child to school that imposes such restrictions, then they are necessarily condoning the restrictions that are in place. Theoretically, parents are the ones driving how the school board operates. Or are we to believe that the world is full of apathetic individuals who do not reach out to their government representatives and only wish or vent on message boards that things might be different...ok, I can buy that.

I don't know but maybe I have quaint notions that children have certain rights independent of whether their parents designate them or not. The right to their life comes to mind right off. The right not to be deprived of liberty would be another. How about civil rights? Does these need the parents acquiescence to be viable?

In this case it seems the parents are behind the student and the attempt to impose it was done after the kid was already in school.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

These children don't have freedom (and that's ok), they're told what they can and can't wear to school. They're told where to go, how long to be there for, when to leave, when to talk, when to listen, and what to do when they're not on school property (homework). The idea that this is somehow an overreach of "big brother" is a complete mystery to me, but I very clearly seem to be in the minority on this one.

Is it really a mystery to you? I'm surprised. Allow me to assist.

Take the time to read this. It should help to clear things up:

http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Perhaps. But if that is true, then it is the parents making the decisions, not bureaucrats.

Tyranny begins at home.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Bit of a straw man here. "Hey just be glad schools are not federally controlled!"

You're reading too much into the significance of that one line. I was just making a side note that a lack of participation is less excusable at the local levels.

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

This does not justify requiring children to wear tracking devices.

The justification has already been established. What has not been established is the damage.

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

You mean, other than violating the student 14th amendment rights and probably the 9th?

In loco parentis. Do you really think students should maintain Constitutionally protected rights while getting an education? Including the 1st and 2nd amendments, too, right? That's impractical and has already been upheld (not to say that sometimes a school may have been said to go too far - i.e. interpretation of establishment clause). But what we are talking about here is a more efficient attendance system.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

I don't know but maybe I have quaint notions that children have certain rights independent of whether their parents designate them or not. The right to their life comes to mind right off. The right not to be deprived of liberty would be another. How about civil rights? Does these need the parents acquiescence to be viable?

Liberty? Really? Do you think the children should be able to come and go as they please and be free to ignore the teacher in his/her classroom? I have to say I disagree that there's any place for "liberty" in the classroom other than the freedom to be there or not be there as a package deal. If you choose to be there (or your parents have chosen for you to be there), you have a reasonable expectation to play by their rules. If the rules suck, children need to take it up with their parents.

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

In this case it seems the parents are behind the student and the attempt to impose it was done after the kid was already in school.

Parents are trying to extend rights to the students that they don't truly have. Should children be allowed to purchase firearms too? Minors don't have the same rights as everybody else, and this has been upheld in the courts (in fairness, in some cases, the extension of the right has been upheld). But the idea that minors have less rights is not a new idea.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Is it really a mystery to you? I'm surprised. Allow me to assist.

Take the time to read this. It should help to clear things up:

http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt

I will read all of that, but the first thing that comes to mind when the teacher talks about confusion is that this was a very poor teacher. This individual apparently did not grasp the idea that teaching is more than placing a robot in a classroom to follow exclusively and explicitly a specific curriculum. The best in any profession know what tweaks to make and where to deviate from past instances to cater to the interest of your customers. This teacher clearly didn't get it. We've all had teachers that we remember for being fantastic (well, hopefully), and we've all likely had teachers that we could have done without. It seems like this was a good teacher who lost his ability to reach his audience and decided to blame it on "the system" rather than to continue to make adaptations that fit the clientele. Either that or his praise was a sham and he felt guilty about his incompetence. But I will read the rest of that when I get a chance.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I will read all of that, but the first thing that comes to mind when the teacher talks about confusion is that this was a very poor teacher. This individual apparently did not grasp the idea that teaching is more than placing a robot in a classroom to follow exclusively and explicitly a specific curriculum. The best in any profession know what tweaks to make and where to deviate from past instances to cater to the interest of your customers. This teacher clearly didn't get it. We've all had teachers that we remember for being fantastic (well, hopefully), and we've all likely had teachers that we could have done without. It seems like this was a good teacher who lost his ability to reach his audience and decided to blame it on "the system" rather than to continue to make adaptations that fit the clientele. Either that or his praise was a sham and he felt guilty about his incompetence. But I will read the rest of that when I get a chance.

I think you might be misunderstanding what Gatto was saying in that piece. Finish it, and then consider why the "education" system was set up this way and what it was intended to accomplish.

To focus on individual teachers within a deliberately corrupt system is to miss the larger point.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Liberty? Really? Do you think the children should be able to come and go as they please and be free to ignore the teacher in his/her classroom? I have to say I disagree that there's any place for "liberty" in the classroom other than the freedom to be there or not be there as a package deal. If you choose to be there (or your parents have chosen for you to be there), you have a reasonable expectation to play by their rules. If the rules suck, children need to take it up with their parents.



Parents are trying to extend rights to the students that they don't truly have. Should children be allowed to purchase firearms too? Minors don't have the same rights as everybody else, and this has been upheld in the courts (in fairness, in some cases, the extension of the right has been upheld). But the idea that minors have less rights is not a new idea.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

In this case there is a certain amount of liberty involved. The school, nor the parents, have the right to imprison the students so these kids do not relinquish all of these rights when they walk in the door. I think you are using rights which have been determined it is necessary to be of a certain age with those where age should not be a determining factor. The right to life is basic and unless a crime committed I don't see where this has been limited nor upheld by courts not to be so. The same goes back to the liberty issue and it seems so far there are those in the judicial branch who believe likewise.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I will read all of that, but the first thing that comes to mind when the teacher talks about confusion is that this was a very poor teacher. This individual apparently did not grasp the idea that teaching is more than placing a robot in a classroom to follow exclusively and explicitly a specific curriculum. The best in any profession know what tweaks to make and where to deviate from past instances to cater to the interest of your customers. This teacher clearly didn't get it. We've all had teachers that we remember for being fantastic (well, hopefully), and we've all likely had teachers that we could have done without. It seems like this was a good teacher who lost his ability to reach his audience and decided to blame it on "the system" rather than to continue to make adaptations that fit the clientele. Either that or his praise was a sham and he felt guilty about his incompetence. But I will read the rest of that when I get a chance.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

30 years in the class room, three times teacher of the year in the city of New York, one time teacher of the year in the state of New York (all four of those awards towards the end of his career). I'm going to go with you misread what he wrote rather than that he wasn't a good teacher or lost his ability to reach his audience.