Education Authories Abuse Their Power

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Unless the kid broke any of the rules in the code of conduct, (s)he is not to be punished.

I disagree.

There are very few things that are best taught in school which can NOT be taught elsewhere. One of those things -- albeit, indirectly -- is social power, consequences and the most bitter truth of all: life is not fair.

This is an issue of freedom of speech and many people do not realize that exercising their free speech has repercussions. These kids learned repercussions. If their parents do not like it, too bad. They should send their younger kids to a different school or keep them at home. Outside of their parents' home, kids are no longer the king of the castle.

I'll agree that kids have to learn that life is not fair. I am for justice yet agaisnt fairness. It's unjust to be punished if none of the rules were disobeyed. It was not the school's place to punish the kid. The authorities in this case who 'could' punish the kid are the people working at Facebook.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

So lets make this less virtual.....

Say there's this student bully and this student like to meet his peers near the mall and threatens to beat the crap out of them till they fork over some lunch coin.

Lets say the School is made aware of this studnet bully....

Now all this happens away from school....

Does the School have an obligation to protect the students?

I say they do.

Mall security and local police are the authorities in this case. All the school can do is inform local authorities.

The school can, however provide a safe place for the pupils on school property (and on commuter buses which can also be considered school property). The "bully" in this example is likely to be a source of problems on school property aswell, and even if it's not the case, the school authorities can increase awareness and share good resources with the pupils and parents.

[nbguyca]

Point #2 - If you want to fix the state school system, start by disbanding the unions. Quit protecting the lazy and stupid and you will see the cream rise to the top. The idiot teachers will soon be run off, or teaching in a place where their performance isn't really a consideration anyway.

Not all teacher union are as strong as say Ontario. In some provinces, getting rid of the union would give the provincial governments carte blanche do do what ever they wanted to do with the teachers and the schools.

I'm not a big supporter of unions but in some situations they are still needed.

[nbguyca]

[if it was my kid affected by this kind of abuse of power, they school would find itself in court so fast it would make their heads spin.

Sorry I don't see the abuse of power.

The kids posted in a public forum and made remarks that may or may not be libelous. They are free to do so.

The school has a trip planned and they determine who gets to go. They have decided that these kids can't. Where is the abuse of power?

[stignasty]

At some time I may have agreed with you. But this is something that we have never had to deal with. Printed rants, made up lies, all aimed at ruining a teachers life. Even the hint, nary a sniff of improper conduct against a teacher can put that person on the outside looking for another job. Schools and admins see it far better to rid themselves of any suspected teachers than to seriously look into and find out about any allegations.

The schools would rather just send a kid home for misbehaving, as if confining Johnny to his room, what with his X box, Ipod, 30HDTV, as punishment.

I admit I do not have an answer, and I am a strong believer in rights, but these kids are trampelling on someone elses rights, and the liability they have (the kids) is not met by the liability imposed.

As for butting out, on matters not dealing with school, or teachers, I do agree. There are schools in the US who have breathalyzers ready and waiting on Monday morning. Suspected of drinking (underage) over the weekend and still have booze in the system..?....busted. Now that is pathetic. Drug testing kids, pathetic , locker searches and police in schools, pathetic.

But knowingly trying to ruin a teacher , not pathetic.

I think this is dead on.

[Figleaf]

...It would be interesting to see some nutbar defending their child's right to be an little egotistical brat......to defend their child's right to defame ......

It would be great if you would pay attention to a the content of a topic before holding forth on it. Defamation is enforceable through the courts. No-one is arguing for permission to defame, I'm merely saying that if defamation is the issue, the teachers can use the defamation laws. Their power over students by virtue of their position is a different conceptual arena from defamation.

...yes that's what we need, more parents teaching their kids that to behave like a selfish asshole is meritous.....that their precious little children are above and beyond the basic common courtesies...

That's certainly not my argument. I think the teachers are perfectly right to go to parents and point out the discourtesy -- any responsible parent would take their kids to task for being rude to ANY adult, teacher or not. But that's the point -- outside of the school, there's no basis for a teacher to have greater protection or power than regular people.

[Figleaf]

There is no basis for a school to make up any rules or codes, or apply any sanctions, or use any school resources, that purport to govern student behaviour outside or away from the school context.

School authorities are not juvenile morality police or social regulators of youth. They need to focus their efforts and attentions on their jobs, not extraneous pursuits.

Sorry, there is.

Robert Dunn, a superintendent with the York Region District School Board, said he could not discuss individual students, but noted that any violation of Willowbrook's safe schools policy is subject to discipline.

Students are made aware of the policy at the beginning of the school year, when they are asked to take it home, read it, sign it and have their parents do the same, he said.

A specific section of the policy deals with Internet use and reads: "Misconduct carried out over the Internet may be subject to school discipline, whether carried out at home, at a school or elsewhere."

Well, once again, it looks like you're not reading things before you hold forth on them. I said there was no basis for a school to make up rules about non-school matters and all you've done is reference a set of such unfounded rules. Your response does not answer the point.

[Figleaf]

It is absolutely not the role of a school to MAKE life unfair in order to teach students that life is unfair.

I agree but I truly do not know what the role of school should be. Are going to out-of-town school trips part of that role?

If out of town trips are provided by the school, then the only reason for excluding someone should be a valid one within the schools appropriate authority.

When an authority punishes expression, it is no longer free. The repurcussion you cite is merely repression.

I agree and I think that is the harsh reality of life.

I acknowledge that my arguments are normative ones, but based on a descriptive understanding of the surrounding authoritative context.

If it was my kid affected by this kind of abuse of power, they school would find itself in court so fast it would make their heads spin.

Would you teach your child to denigrate teachers?

Indeed not, if it were my kid, I would probably suspend internet privileges and makes sure that either a convincing in-person or a thoroughly written apology was tendered the the aggrieved party immediately. But I'd do that whether the target was a teacher or neighbor or a delivery person or dogwalker or whatever.

The point is that out-of-school teachers shouldn't use or have any more power that anyone else.

[Figleaf]

So lets make this less virtual.....

Say there's this student bully and this student like to meet his peers near the mall and threatens to beat the crap out of them till they fork over some lunch coin.

Lets say the School is made aware of this studnet bully....

Now all this happens away from school....

Does the School have an obligation to protect the students?

I say they do.

Factually, they have no such obligation, and no such authority.

Normatively, I think that the school is the absolutely wrong institution to shoe-horn into that role.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

If it was my kid affected by this kind of abuse of power, they school would find itself in court so fast it would make their heads spin.

Sorry I don't see the abuse of power.

The kids posted in a public forum and made remarks that may or may not be libelous. They are free to do so.

The school has a trip planned and they determine who gets to go. They have decided that these kids can't. Where is the abuse of power?

The kid made use of freedom of speech.

The school rescinded the kid's privilege to participate in the trip, justifying it as a punishment for an act, despite the fact that no school rules were broken.

Going on this trip is indeed a privilege and not a right, but one needs a valid reason to not grant a certain individual this privilege. It was not the school's place to intervene directly; they are not the authority to deal with this.

[nbguyca]

[The kid made use of freedom of speech.

The school rescinded the kid's privilege to participate in the trip, justifying it as a punishment for an act, despite the fact that no school rules were broken.

Going on this trip is indeed a privilege and not a right, but one needs a valid reason to not grant a certain individual this privilege. It was not the school's place to intervene directly; they are not the authority to deal with this.

You said it yourself that going on the trip is a privilege and not a right. The school, however, does have the right to decide on who is going and who is not. If the students have the freedom to make statements that damage the reputation of the teachers and the school, then the school has the freedom to say they do not belong on the trip.

[M.Dancer]

So lets make this less virtual.....

Say there's this student bully and this student like to meet his peers near the mall and threatens to beat the crap out of them till they fork over some lunch coin.

Lets say the School is made aware of this studnet bully....

Now all this happens away from school....

Does the School have an obligation to protect the students?

I say they do.

Mall security and local police are the authorities in this case. All the school can do is inform local authorities.

The school can, however provide a safe place for the pupils on school property (and on commuter buses which can also be considered school property). The "bully" in this example is likely to be a source of problems on school property aswell, and even if it's not the case, the school authorities can increase awareness and share good resources with the pupils and parents.

Mall security have no authoority off the mall, and lets face it, the cops aren't going to do much without proof of violence....so it remains the job of the school to ensure a safe learning environemnt.

When I was in high school the bully would most leikely be given extra PT time with the gym teacher....or expelled. EOS

[M.Dancer]

But that's the point -- outside of the school, there's no basis for a teacher to have greater protection or power than regular people.

And inside the school they do...so they have no power over students NOT going to their school....fair enough, I agree, expell the students.

[M.Dancer]

I said there was no basis for a school to make up rules about non-school matters and all you've done is reference a set of such unfounded rules. Your response does not answer the point.

I'm sure you have a source to back up this assertion. Two sources really

1) A source that says they can't form rules regarding behavior of students

2) A source that says this rule is unfounded

...Off you go now.....

[M.Dancer]

Factually, they have no such obligation, and no such authority.

Normatively, I think that the school is the absolutely wrong institution to shoe-horn into that role.

Sorry, factually they do, It's called the Safe Schools Act and Regulations. And it's law.

Insults, disrespect, and other hurtful acts disrupt learning and teaching in a school community. Members of the school community have a responsibility to maintain an environment where conflict and difference can be addressed in a manner characterized by respect and civility.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/broc...ct/conduct.html

[Figleaf]

I said there was no basis for a school to make up rules about non-school matters and all you've done is reference a set of such unfounded rules. Your response does not answer the point.

I'm sure you have a source to back up this assertion.

I'm making a negative assertion saying there is no authority. You are making a positive assertion saying there is authority. Accordingly, it is for you to support your positive, not me to support my negative. My negative is proved by the absense of your positive.

[Figleaf]

Factually, they have no such obligation [to police or protect students in their lives away from school], and no such authority.

Normatively, I think that the school is the absolutely wrong institution to shoe-horn into that role.

Sorry, factually they do, It's called the Safe Schools Act and Regulations. And it's law.

Oh really? Then please reference the section(s) of that act that supports your contention about activities away from school.

[Figleaf]

... going on the trip is a privilege and not a right. The school, however, does have the right to decide on who is going and who is not. If the students have the freedom to make statements that damage the reputation of the teachers and the school, then the school has the freedom to say they do not belong on the trip.

Actually, the school does NOT have a 'right' to use extraneous/irrelevant considerations to pick and choose who gets to enjoy a school activity.

Actually, students don't have a right to damage the reputation of teachers. Teachers, like anyone else, can action defamation through the courts.

Let's consider an analogy...

Person A is a veteran on a pension.

His neighbor is Person B, who works in the Veterans Affairs department.

Person A has a dog who pees on Person B's bushes.

Person B cuts off Person A's pension until he promises to curb his dog.

Did Person B act correctly?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

You said it yourself that going on the trip is a privilege and not a right. The school, however, does have the right to decide on who is going and who is not. If the students have the freedom to make statements that damage the reputation of the teachers and the school, then the school has the freedom to say they do not belong on the trip.

One needs a reason to revoke a privilege. An event irrelevant to school rules can't be grounds for revoking a privilege. I'll have to agree with Figleaf.

So lets make this less virtual.....

Say there's this student bully and this student like to meet his peers near the mall and threatens to beat the crap out of them till they fork over some lunch coin.

Lets say the School is made aware of this studnet bully....

Now all this happens away from school....

Does the School have an obligation to protect the students?

I say they do.

Mall security and local police are the authorities in this case. All the school can do is inform local authorities.

The school can, however provide a safe place for the pupils on school property (and on commuter buses which can also be considered school property). The "bully" in this example is likely to be a source of problems on school property aswell, and even if it's not the case, the school authorities can increase awareness and share good resources with the pupils and parents.

Mall security have no authoority off the mall, and lets face it, the cops aren't going to do much without proof of violence....so it remains the job of the school to ensure a safe learning environemnt.

When I was in high school the bully would most leikely be given extra PT time with the gym teacher....or expelled. EOS

Safe learning environment can be guaranteed on school premises, not off school property. This is up to other authorities to deal with this situation.

[M.Dancer]

Factually, they have no such obligation [to police or protect students in their lives away from school], and no such authority.

Normatively, I think that the school is the absolutely wrong institution to shoe-horn into that role.

Sorry, factually they do, It's called the Safe Schools Act and Regulations. And it's law.

Oh really? Then please reference the section(s) of that act that supports your contention about activities away from school.

Like the part of my post you decided to trim away?

That's just a wee bit dishonest, don't you think?

[Figleaf]

Factually, they have no such obligation [to police or protect students in their lives away from school], and no such authority.

Normatively, I think that the school is the absolutely wrong institution to shoe-horn into that role.

Sorry, factually they do, It's called the Safe Schools Act and Regulations. And it's law.

Oh really? Then please reference the section(s) of that act that supports your contention about activities away from school.

Like the part of my post you decided to trim away?

That's just a wee bit dishonest, don't you think?

No, I cut it away because it was irrelevant.

But, it's interesting that you bring up dishonesty because I was begining to wonder about yours.

Let's look, shall we?

Point 1.

You refered to the Safe Schools Act and Regulations saying "it's law".

HOWEVER, your link goes to a department of education Guideline -- not an act, not a regulation. So, EITHER you misrepresented your source OR you don't understand the nature of your source. If the former, your honesty is deficient. If the latter, your knowledge is insufficient to sustain the arrogant approach you are taking to this discussion.

Point 2.

You suggested that your source supports the premise that schools' authority extends to non-school matters. HOWEVER, the very first paragraph in the link you provided under the heading 'Guiding Principles' says: All participants involved in the publicly funded school system – students, parents or guardians, volunteers, teachers and other staff members -- are included in this Code of Conduct whether they are on school property, on school buses or at school- authorized events or activities. which clearly does not extend to non-school activities in the way you have contended. So, in this regard, again, either your honesty is in question or your grasp of the facts is disturbingly lacking.

Based on the foregoing (without some additional materials to support you), your argument is shown to be wrong by the very materials you have cited. (I anticipate that you'll lose your temper now.)

[M.Dancer]

Poor poor figleaf......

An Act to increase respect

and responsibility, to set standards

for safe learning and safe teaching

in schools and to amend

the Teaching Profession Act

Assented to June 23, 2000

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

Education Act

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Source/...00/S00012_e.htm

Provincial code of conduct

301. (1) The Minister may establish a code of conduct governing the behaviour of all persons in schools

Policies and guidelines governing conduct

(5) The Minister may establish additional policies and guidelines with respect to the conduct of persons in schools.

Same, mandatory

(2) A board shall direct a principal to establish a local code of conduct if the board is required to do so by the Minister, and the local code must address such matters and include such requirements as the Minister may specify.

Are students in schools or not in schools? When is a student no longer a student?

[M.Dancer]

Based on the foregoing (without some additional materials to support you), your argument is shown to be wrong by the very materials you have cited. (I anticipate that you'll lose your temper now.)

At what? You're inability to argue honestly?

[Hydraboss]

Poor poor figleaf......

An Act to increase respect

and responsibility, to set standards

for safe learning and safe teaching

in schools and to amend

the Teaching Profession Act

Assented to June 23, 2000

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

Education Act

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Source/...00/S00012_e.htm

Provincial code of conduct

301. (1) The Minister may establish a code of conduct governing the behaviour of all persons in schools

Policies and guidelines governing conduct

(5) The Minister may establish additional policies and guidelines with respect to the conduct of persons in schools.

Same, mandatory

(2) A board shall direct a principal to establish a local code of conduct if the board is required to do so by the Minister, and the local code must address such matters and include such requirements as the Minister may specify.

Are students in schools or not in schools? When is a student no longer a student?

When they were writing in Facebook, they were purportedly not IN SCHOOL. If they were physically in school, then yes, the school officials would have grounds for action. If they were not physically in school (in school defined as on school property, on a school trip, on a school bus, etc), then the administration has no grounds other than legal action by the affected teachers.

[M.Dancer]

Poor poor figleaf......

An Act to increase respect

and responsibility, to set standards

for safe learning and safe teaching

in schools and to amend

the Teaching Profession Act

Assented to June 23, 2000

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

Education Act

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Source/...00/S00012_e.htm

Provincial code of conduct

301. (1) The Minister may establish a code of conduct governing the behaviour of all persons in schools

Policies and guidelines governing conduct

(5) The Minister may establish additional policies and guidelines with respect to the conduct of persons in schools.

Same, mandatory

(2) A board shall direct a principal to establish a local code of conduct if the board is required to do so by the Minister, and the local code must address such matters and include such requirements as the Minister may specify.

Are students in schools or not in schools? When is a student no longer a student?

When they were writing in Facebook, they were purportedly not IN SCHOOL. If they were physically in school, then yes, the school officials would have grounds for action. If they were not physically in school (in school defined as on school property, on a school trip, on a school bus, etc), then the administration has no grounds other than legal action by the affected teachers.

So do these insults cease to exist when they are in School. Are Students not students when the leave the school property? If they access facebook in school, do the insults vanish?