Education Authories Abuse Their Power

[M.Dancer]

On top of that, school staff intervene all the time into the off school affairs of students and to suggest they shouldn't is both naive and irresponsible.

Nonsense. Please give examples of this wide-ranging abuse and busybodyness of schools. You make them sound like Party Cadres or Morality Police!

Students have been rescued from abusive relationships, family turmoil, drugs alcohol and worse.

By alert teachers calling in the PROPER AUTHORITIES.

On one hand you want proof and on the other you say they call the proper authorities? How dare they call the autorities? Aren't good parents teaching their children not to respect authority!!!

Make up you mind...........

BTW, the proper authorities are sometimes guidence councillors, board psychologists, police and even children's aid. They aren't so much as unrelated departments you know, at least not in the real world.

But doesn't just piss you off, these bureaucrats sticking their noses into private lives....?

[Figleaf]

... if you can't figure out how an affiliation to a community( school)is integral to this....no wait, maybe it's your inability to see the obvious is why you started this farce.

It's your inability to thread together anything like a coherent argument that makes this such a farce. Give up, man up, and admit it -- the school authorities are out of line on this one.

[Figleaf]

It's not like it was either the first time that school officials excersized their authority over their students or will it be their last.

Well, except we've established they had no such 'authority', so they weren't exercising it, they were making it up through abuse of their power in school.

Sorry, neither you or whomever have established.

Actually, your sources really established it, in that they specified 'in school' as the relevant dividing line. Having thoroughly undermined your own premise, I would have thought you'd give up. Your ... determination ... to confront simple reality is ... remarkable .

I have though established that the students signed a contract.

Coerced, and exceeding the schools authority. Nonsense contracts that violate the law don't count.

What you haven't established is that the school doesn't have the authority to disqualify whomever they please from extracurricular activities.

Do you really dispute that schools have a duty of fairness toward the students within them?

Now you could go all swealian ...

?

I don't have to prove they can because prescedent already proves it.

I refer you to my earlier response to that argument. (Search under 'too stupid to merit a reply'.)

[Charles Anthony]

I have though established that the students signed a contract.

Coerced, and exceeding the schools authority. Nonsense contracts that violate the law don't count.

How is there coercion?

What you haven't established is that the school doesn't have the authority to disqualify whomever they please from extracurricular activities.

Do you really dispute that schools have a duty of fairness toward the students within them?

I do because the concept of fairness is not black and white. If you can present a concise Law Of Fairness for a school, I would like to hear it.

[Figleaf]

I have though established that the students signed a contract.

Coerced, and exceeding the schools authority. Nonsense contracts that violate the law don't count.

How is there coercion?

It's low-grade coercion ... a bureaucrat in control of a needed service to which you are entitled nevertheless demands acceptance of an ancillary 'agreement' before they will provide the service. The cost of non-compliance is denial of your entitlement, with attendant inconvenience.

What you haven't established is that the school doesn't have the authority to disqualify whomever they please from extracurricular activities.

Do you really dispute that schools have a duty of fairness toward the students within them?

I do because the concept of fairness is not black and white. If you can present a concise Law Of Fairness for a school, I would like to hear it.

I don't need to answer this. My point requires neither that it be concise or black and white. It is a reasonably well developed concept in administrative and constitutional law (q.v.).

[Charles Anthony]

It's low-grade coercion ... a bureaucrat in control of a needed service to which you are entitled nevertheless demands acceptance of an ancillary 'agreement' before they will provide the service. The cost of non-compliance is denial of your entitlement, with attendant inconvenience.

To what service are we entitled?

There are costs to receiving everything. The students also have to show up on time to their classes. Should they be allowed to repeatedly walk into class late? Should exceptions be made for students whose parents just died the night before?

Discretion is always applied and that is what children need to learn. There is precious little else that needs to be learned in "school" that can not be learned elsewhere.

I don't need to answer this. My point requires neither that it be concise or black and white. It is a reasonably well developed concept in administrative and constitutional law (q.v.).

In that case, you should be able to cite whichever administrative or constitutional law was violated. I eagerly await that citation upon which your argument hinges.

I really think it is no big deal for a teacher or a school to say: If you insult a teacher in any manner whatsoever in or out of school, you will be barred, at our sole discretion, from participating in non-essential school services such as extra-curricular activities. Personnally, I think that is the most valuable lesson a school can teach.

[M.Dancer]

I have though established that the students signed a contract.

Coerced, and exceeding the schools authority. Nonsense contracts that violate the law don't count.

Well that is certainly an unsupportable opinion.

Do you really dispute that schools have a duty of fairness toward the students within them?

No and what's more, In this case I would say they have gone beyond fair.

[Figleaf]

Coerced, and exceeding the schools authority. Nonsense contracts that violate the law don't count.

Well that is certainly an unsupportable opinion.

One of your more remarkable characteristics, Dancer, is your willingness to say just about any sort of nonsense, no matter how ludicrous, unconnected, incorrect, or misbegotten.

[Figleaf]

It's low-grade coercion ... a bureaucrat in control of a needed service to which you are entitled nevertheless demands acceptance of an ancillary 'agreement' before they will provide the service. The cost of non-compliance is denial of your entitlement, with attendant inconvenience.

To what service are we entitled?

I'm refering to public education for minors ages approximately 5-18.

The students also have to show up on time to their classes.

Which is directly related to the school, rather than being totally outside and away from it. Do you remember what the issue is here?

... you should be able to cite whichever administrative or constitutional law was violated.

I'm refering to a well known principle, not a particular section of a statute. Google the concept and you'll have no difficulty finding a plethora of material.

I really think it is no big deal for a teacher or a school to say: If you insult a teacher in any manner whatsoever in or out of school, you will be barred, ...

The only 'big deal' about it is that there is no authority anywhere that authorizes a school to do any such thing, and so doing it is an abuse of power.

Would you care to consider the hypothetical analogy I wrote earlier?

[M.Dancer]

Coerced, and exceeding the schools authority. Nonsense contracts that violate the law don't count.

Well that is certainly an unsupportable opinion.

One of your more remarkable characteristics, Dancer, is your willingness to say just about any sort of nonsense, no matter how ludicrous, unconnected, incorrect, or misbegotten.

Well as long as we both agree your opinion has no merit and can't be supported.....but being demonstratb;ly wrong doesn't give you the freedom to insult.

[Charles Anthony]

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?

Correctly according to what?

Did Person B act morally? No.

Did Person B act in his own self-interest? Yes.

Did Person B act in such a way that he could avoid repercussions? Maybe! -- and that would be because of what institution?

To what service are we entitled?

I'm refering to public education for minors ages approximately 5-18.

Why public?

The students also have to show up on time to their classes.

Which is directly related to the school, rather than being totally outside and away from it. Do you remember what the issue is here?

It is not directly related to the school before they get to school. Do you remember how you supported your position? You were appealing to the cost of non-compliance to a perception of coercion.

If a student can not physically get out of his house, is the school coercing him by not carrying him to class?

... you should be able to cite whichever administrative or constitutional law was violated.

I'm refering to a well known principle, not a particular section of a statute. Google the concept and you'll have no difficulty finding a plethora of material.

I will just take your word for it.

I really think it is no big deal for a teacher or a school to say: If you insult a teacher in any manner whatsoever in or out of school, you will be barred, ...

The only 'big deal' about it is that there is no authority anywhere that authorizes a school to do any such thing, and so doing it is an abuse of power.

I disagree. The source of this problem is the general public's sense of entitlement.

[M.Dancer]

I disagree. The source of this problem is the general public's sense of entitlement.

True. At one time children were taught respect and at very least were taught that disrespect produced consequences. I have talked to a few people about this particular story including my Brother in law...not one feels that the kid was hard done by or that the school over stepped their authority.

[Figleaf]

Why public?

The events we are discussing occured in public schools, and the authority (or not) we are discussing is publicly granted/constructed.

The students also have to show up on time to their classes.

Which is directly related to the school, rather than being totally outside and away from it. Do you remember what the issue is here?

It is not directly related to the school before they get to school.

Their arrival AT SCHOOL is what is late in your example.

You were appealing to the cost of non-compliance to a perception of coercion.

???

The source of this problem is the general public's sense of entitlement.

Well, I don't see how.

[guyser]

I have talked to a few people about this particular story including my Brother in law...not one feels that the kid was hard done by or that the school over stepped their authority.

I had dinner on saturday night with (A) a school principal ( and two teachers. They all felt as if the school was right. To be honest, the combo of wine and good food renders me unable to recall everything they said.

I think...that they agreed that no resolution outside of school was going to do anything, and the subsequent damage to a teachers rep was not improved by going to court.

Now some of the other things the principal said were shocking. Like calling the cops on a drug dealer, and the cops asked the Principal "did you ask to search him and also tell him that you would call the cops if he did not allow you to search?".

Yes.

The we cannot arrest him as you have violated his rights. Something to do with "duress".

Anyhow, too much wine to recall exactly.

[Hydraboss]

Although I am loath to side with the little bastards, I must do so in this case.

The school overstepped it's bounds by punishing the children for what they did off school grounds. Examples such as teachers "stepping in" in cases of abuse, etc only proves that educators are constantly going beyond their jurisdiction. If there is reason to suspect abuse, drug use, theft, whatever, then the teacher/administrator should be contacting proper authorities, aka police, social services. Teachers are not authorities at 3:05pm. They are citizens and have no more power than the kids themselves. If these overgrown babysitters want to get involved, do it by legal channels. If they feel their reputations are damaged by these kids, find recourse through legal channels.

Whoever posted the example of the pension scenario:

The person that withholds pension payments due to an unrelated incident involving a dog would, at the least, be subject to review and, in all likelihood, be reprimanded or terminated. And rightfully so. If you continue down this thought path, then I should be able to fire one of my employees because I want to date his girlfriend and he won't let me. It is abuse of authority and I would be in front of the Labour Board in a heartbeat.

The poor, poor, little teacher-sitters should buck-up and either sue the families involved or shut up. They are due no respect because they earn no respect. They ARE civil servants, and should only be treated with enough respect to satisfy school conduct policies. Period. Once off school property and off school hours (including field trips, etc) I couldn't care less if people ignored them all together. Their overbloated salaries should be enough to help them find solace.

Want respect? Get a job that actually earns it.

Until then, quit exerting authority that you don't have.

[Charles Anthony]

Their arrival AT SCHOOL is what is late in your example.

-- and thus, a school insisting that a student arrives on time is coercing -- according to your logic -- a cost upon the student.

A student who must arrive on time -- read: "low-grade coercion ... a bureaucrat in control of a needed service to which you are entitled nevertheless demands acceptance of an ancillary 'agreement' before they will provide the service" your words -- is bearing a cost. Again, your words: "The cost of non-compliance is denial of your entitlement, with attendant inconvenience."

I am applying your logic and your justification for your position. Mind you, I am being exceedingly nit-picking for argument's sake but ultimately, students have to share the cost and that line is drawn arbitrarily.

You were appealing to the cost of non-compliance to a perception of coercion.

???

Indeed, your argument is questionable when applied consistently. It leads to a logical dead end where a student who is physically incapable of entering school is deemed to have been coerced by the school and denied his public entitlement.

I wonder how your logic would apply to students who are mentally incapable of learning.

The be-all and end-all is that students must accept arbitrary power in life. School is part of that learning process.

I had dinner on saturday night with (A) a school principal ( and two teachers. They all felt as if the school was right. To be honest, the combo of wine and good food renders me unable to recall everything they said.

Part of me suspects that it was probably biased from the get-go anyway.

Teachers are not authorities at 3:05pm. They are citizens and have no more power than the kids themselves.

Not really. We are quick to treat teachers differently because they are "authority figures" when we suspect them of having sex with students.

Want respect? Get a job that actually earns it.

Until then, quit exerting authority that you don't have.

If you do not like your public baby-sitter, send your kid to a different one.

[Hydraboss]

Not really. We are quick to treat teachers differently because they are "authority figures" when we suspect them of having sex with students.

...and that is wrong unless the acts took place on school property (and by extension school trips, etc). The only act that should be subject to scrutiny is whether or not the student is below the age of consent or there is proof of "I'll give you a good mark if you sleep with me". If the student is of legal age and there is no provable coersion, let it be.

If you do not like your public baby-sitter, send your kid to a different one.

I have. The reality is that my wife and I do not have the luxury of being able to home school, and since the state has the legal right to take my money for education, I am compelled to make use of the service.

Although I am an officer in the company I work for, and therefore a high-level authority figure, I have absolutely no power of enforcement when I am not in a work environment. Teachers are no different and should learn to accept it.

[Charles Anthony]

...and that is wrong unless the acts took place on school property (and by extension school trips, etc). The only act that should be subject to scrutiny is whether or not the student is below the age of consent or there is proof of "I'll give you a good mark if you sleep with me". If the student is of legal age and there is no provable coersion, let it be.

I agree. Ultimately, where we draw the line of a teacher's authority is arbitrary.

The reality is that my wife and I do not have the luxury of being able to home school, and since the state has the legal right to take my money for education, I am compelled to make use of the service.

Do you feel like you are entitled to a PUBLIC education?

[Figleaf]

Their arrival AT SCHOOL is what is late in your example.

-- and thus, a school insisting that a student arrives on time is coercing -- according to your logic -- a cost upon the student.

I'm not entirely sure I follow your point. School official have authority over some things directly involving the school. My point on this thread is that student's activities away from school are not within the scope of that authority

I am applying your logic and your justification for your position.

I'm not following. You may have to spell it out for me.

Indeed, your argument is questionable when applied consistently. It leads to a logical dead end where a student who is physically incapable of entering school is deemed to have been coerced by the school and denied his public entitlement.

I remain too mystified to even approach an answer. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what are you saying? I have the feeling you think I've made an argument I don't recall making.

I wonder how your logic would apply to students who are mentally incapable of learning.

??

School's authority wouldn't extend any further over such students than it does over other students, unless some appropriate rule or law says so.

[Charles Anthony]

I remain too mystified to even approach an answer. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what are you saying? I have the feeling you think I've made an argument I don't recall making.

Possibly.

Ultimately, the authority of a school is arbitrary -- the State decrees it to do so and so.

That authority can be changed. If enough parents who are entitled to public education lobby the government to re-draw the arbitrary line, it will be re-drawn.

Your argument that the school authority stops at school property is purely bureaucratic and depends exclusively on the specific jurisdiction -- all of which can change. Having said that, my argument does too.

Thus, the only valid appeal that either of us can make is The Will Of The Majority and some of us are comfortable accepting a school that exercises more discretion.

[Figleaf]

I remain too mystified to even approach an answer. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what are you saying? I have the feeling you think I've made an argument I don't recall making.

Possibly.

Ultimately, the authority of a school is arbitrary -- the State decrees it to do so and so.

Well, I'm not totally willing to accept that state authority is 'arbitrary'.

That authority can be changed. If enough parents who are entitled to public education lobby the government to re-draw the arbitrary line, it will be re-drawn.

Which (arbitrary) line are you refering to that parents might want changed?

Your argument that the school authority stops at school property is purely bureaucratic and depends exclusively on the specific jurisdiction -- all of which can change.

Yes, it would be possible for the government to extend school authority.

Thus, the only valid appeal that either of us can make is The Will Of The Majority and some of us are comfortable accepting a school that exercises more discretion.

The will of the majority is expressed through laws and regulations, none of which at this time extend school authority into the private lives of students and families.

[Hydraboss]

Do you feel like you are entitled to a PUBLIC education?

Not at all. However, since the State has determined that I must pay for it then I am entitled to the service for which I have paid. It would suit me better to be allowed to keep my money and make my own determination as to whether or not I wish to pay to have my children educated and if so, by which establishment.

It reminds me very much of negative billing practices by cable tv companies. At least in that instance, I get something for my money.

Ultimately, the authority of a school is arbitrary -- the State decrees it to do so and so.

Arbitrary in scope, but entrenched in legislation in practice. The State has the ability to decree what it will, but unless it is legislated, it is only a suggestion.

[geoffrey]

We have a school voucher program in our province Hydra. You can get a portion of your dollars put towards your kids' private education. I think it's only an Alberta thing, but I may be wrong.

[betsy]

That is ridiculous, M.Dancer. Would you volunteer to live in an authoritarian state so that people would be bound to " show the proper respect " , no matter where they are or who they are with?

But what about that teacher who was posting on a message board??? I think he said something about a controversial issue (I can't remember if it was about SSM)....and he had lost his job for that.

He was just expressing his own personal views in a public board....not in a school room!

We are already in an "authoritarian state"....or really getting there. Except we're just being selective about whom we'd want to enforce our authority on.

[betsy]

With all the violence happening in schools these days....and a lot of violence directed at teachers (re: TV show W5 segment)....wouldn't you be concerned if students say "disparaging remarks" about anyone in school?

If a student say any disparaging remarks about any students belonging to a different culture....I bet Figleaf will be the first to demand it be dealt with harshly!

Anyway, how did they know who the student was who posted? He used his real name?

He SHOULD get detention. For stupidity. Lol.

The teacher should be fired. And the school should be fined. For having a student like that!

Just shows the quality of teaching. Double LOL!