Slashdot Mirror
US Ed Dept Demanding Principals Censor More
Toe, The writes "Education Department officials are threatening school principals with lawsuits if they fail to monitor and curb students' lunchtime chat and evening Facebook time for expressing ideas and words that are deemed to be harassment of some students. Under the new interpretation of civil rights laws, principals and their schools are legally liable if they fail to curb 'harassment' of students, even if it takes place outside the school, on Facebook or in private conversation. When children are concerned, where is the line between protection and censorship?"
On the one hand we teach kids about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. On the other hand, we tell them "Hey johhny - what you say can get you in trouble if you make fun of that fat kid in the playground...
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" Have we become such a bunch of pussies that we can't even deal with having people call us bad names? What ever happened to "hey - here's two pairs of boxing gloves - go behind the gym and work it out?"
And finally, doesn't the Dept of Ed have ANYTHING else to deal with besides this BS?
Ok hold on, I can understand dealing with kids in hallways, or locking down school computer access and whatnot, but off school hours? Limiting kids' speech at lunch? Besides the entire privacy and free speech aspect, how exactly do they propose to do this without massive amounts of money and manpower, and the inevitable legal fees that will accumulate once the lawsuits start pouring in?
-As a warning, don't read the comments in the article, your brain will start to melt.
What kids do outside of school, in their own time with their own equipment, is no business of the schools. It's down to the parents.
Worked in (UK) education for 7 years. I offer advice and training to teachers to introduce safeguarding and online safety into the curriculum, and so far have positive feedback. What the kids do at home, however, isn't our business.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
This strikes me as a profoundly bad idea. While we're delegating parental responsibility over to the principal (which is weird), are we also going to hold them accountable if the kids aren't vaccinated or eating healthy enough?
It's always been difficult to learn about "the land of the free" in an institution where you (the students) are forced by law to go there whether you want to or not.
Excellent training ground for applied sarcasm and irony appreciation, though.
We keep on addressing effect after effect, when we need to be addressing the cause of the problems. Our problems don't stem from Facebook or music or video games, they come from the 'values' in our society. Our 'me first' attitude of competition is coming home to roost. Don't like bullying, well guess what, it's been taught to us from day one to 'win' and to kick someone when they're down so we can stay on top. From kids to corporate america to congress we need a values 'regime change'. Imagine what our country would be like if we were taught from day one to think of the other guy first.. and to help people succeed so that they can be around to help us when we're down. Negative reinforcement from the time we're kids to young adult hood to the workplace... and people wonder why everyone is always afraid these days. I think my boss summed it up for me one day when talking about the company.. he said "It's all punishment and no reward." seems like a fair assessment of our society.
When exactly did the USA remove the right of free speech from their constitution?
"Hello students, this is your principle seaking, I'd like to remind you that bullying will not be tolerated, in particular, calling Josh Smith a 'whiny little faggot' or 'a little bitch' because he complained about being bullied to school staff is not acceptable. Anyone seen beating him up after school behind the gym, which is out of line of sight from any teacher office, will be disciplined."
Whilst I agree whole-heartedly with the school being made responsible for stopping bullying (verbal or physical) during school time and on school grounds, they cannot realistically control what the children do outside of school. The only way to achieve this would be to change the rules by which FB operates. If you read FBs T- ..... ....."
"No information from children under age 13. If you are under age 13, please do not attempt to register for Facebook or provide any personal information about yourself to us.
Parental participation. We strongly recommend that minors 13 years of age or older ask their parents for permission before sending any information about themselves to anyone over the Internet and we encourage parents to teach their children about safe internet use practices.
Maybe the way round this all is either;-
a) Anything posted by a person under the age of 18 (verifiable age by credit card or similar) MUST be approved by either a parent or their school before it goes live - lots of work, but it would mean employing at least 1 person in each school just to carry out this job.
b) Anyone signing up to FB must provide a credit card or similar proof or age. If they are under 18 then the parent/guardian provides this proof and take FULL responsibility for EVERYTHING that is posted by the child - from a legal as well as a moral standpoint. How many parents are going to allow their kids to post "Jonny's a fu$$ing fag and I'm gonna kill him" if they know that the law will come after them for inciting hatred or something similar.
"If you are sending your children to public school that is tantamount to child abuse." - Neal Boortz. They certainly aren't learning any principles that our country stands for. But hey, say its for their own protection, throw the word "Columbine" out there and parents won't care.
Before the hysteria reaches epic proportions, the advisory itself can be found here (pdf). It's a pretty quick read, only 10 pages, and sadly enough lacks any mention of enforcing rules outside of school, forced indoctrination, political correctness, or secret Muslim plots. TFA however makes for some nice slanted coverage, if anyone is looking for a chuckle I encourage you to read it.
Oh yeah, kids have limited consitutional rights - especially in education.
Then the DofE has two choices 1) demand all students install spyware which scans their phones/laptops and photographs the user. 2)Wait until a child suicides and say it isn't their fault
Let's teach our children that they are being monitoried 24/7. Let's teach them to be afraid to speak their mind. Let's label every sentence a kid utters as "bullying." Let's use the schools to create a police state that children will not only learn to accept, but come support when they raise their children.
Does anyone remember the Cold War and what we struggled against? This is as Stallinistic as can be. Hello Soviet States of America!
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest"...
A couple of years ago in my senior year of high school, I got called down to the principal's office for trolling another student on facebook, because she was caught naked in the boys bathroom sucking some guys dick. And I got in trouble for making fun of this girl.
They just passed a law which gives schools outrageous powers over students even in their own homes. Bullying is not such a simple issue. Young males often push each other to "buck up". That is to meet the mark, make the grade, ford the stream, beat the hazard or whatever. Name calling and a bit of pushing around are all part of this process. You see it when recruits go into military training. You certainly see it from both staff and students on football and other sports teams.
Yes there are bullies who are sort of mini terrorists who are a pain to all in schools. But many a milder child has made his mark in maturing by fighting back against a bully. This is just normal human behavior.
As far as youngsters who hang themselves over bullying think about how many young boys and girls commit suicide because they are charmed by members of the opposite sex and then rejected. Love is surely more lethal than the school bully who delivers a punch to the nose. Perhaps these school administrators should consider requiring girls and boys to dress in baggy sack cloth with ashes smeared all over them so that we don't see love sick teens offing themselves by the light of the moon.
Then again: letting kids choose not to go to school has to great a chance to have them go to crime or welfare once they are grown up. The autodidacts are a small group compared to the kids who would crash without school (and thus we should first be considerate of the greater group). It's sad they cannot function to their greatest potential, but sacrifices have to be made assuming you want to let all kids go to the same school.
If you'd have the autodidacts go to a Montessori school (I only know it from my education, I haven't been to one myself) you could have them blossom to their maximum capacity, but normal kid's can't function in a Montessori school.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Not really.
In the US, the Supreme Court upheld the right of free speech for students in Tinker vs. Des Moines School District. Students can express as much free speech as they want provided it does not disrupt the learning environment, so outside-of-class speech is protected.
Unfortunately, Bush's appointees have essentially punched a gigantic hole into the previous ruling with Morse v. Fredrick, where the Roberts Court determined that if the school officials have a seemingly good reason, they can abrogate free speech rights. This looks pretty easy to abuse, a school could claim to be protecting student safety and thus have license to patrol facebook and punish students accordingly.
We have the right to say whatever we like about whoever we like. PERIOD. Schools and governments would do well to re-read the basic framework of our nation.
Read the Morse v. Frederick decision. It is very specific in that it applies to promotion of the use of illegal drugs.
The only way it could tie into a claim of protecting the student safety is if the discussion was about illegal activities and even then the decision specificy states the reason it was valid was because it was done at a school function.
Or, alternatively, how about we teach them about how pointless and petty such things truly are? How about we teach them that words cannot hurt them unless they let themselves be 'hurt' by the words? Someone else's opinion of you matters little (no matter the amount of people that feel the same) and cannot actually harm you (unless they resorted to physical violence, in which case I would agree that intervention would be necessary). What we are doing is essentially placing them into a bubble that filters out everything that they don't wish to hear. They will never learn how pointless being offended by such things truly is, and when they are forced to leave that bubble, they will be lost. This is completely pointless and counterproductive if your goal is to raise a generation of free-thinking people who utilize logic in making their decisions, but from decisions such as this, I'm guessing that that isn't the goal at all.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Let's just hope the students aren't smart enough to create fake Facebook accounts/groups to harass people from.
No sig today...
Children don't have the right to free speech, only adults do.
Where in the first amendment does it state that?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
While I have no doubt that some power-tripping admin will manage to fuck it up somewhere, there is the convenient (in this context) fact that most schoolyard harassment is garden-variety apolitical nastiness, the suppression of which imperils the constitution approximately as much as your angry neighbors forcing you to keep your 3am party to below a certain level of noise...
I thought home education was legal in the US.
Sections 1 and 2 of Article 3 wherein the Supreme Court is established and it's jurisdiction defined. That court has, in turn, interpreted the constitution and found that children are treated differently under the law. Consider for example Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District where the court "allow[ed] schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." It is a murky legal area that reflects a complicated judical question about fundamental fairness.
teenagers are mostly idiots. adults are mostly idiots, but at least they are fully legally accountable for their actions. teenager's actions are still a reflection of their parents, legally and logically, and so curtailment of their rights, according to their parent's wishes is good common sense. i don't think any RESPONSIBLE parent would have a problem with school admin monitoring and policing what their kids do while they are at work, and in fact, probably appreciate it
unless everyone here wants to register an opinion on this subject as if all teenagers were perfect responsible darlings all the time
pfffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In other words, it doesn't, but the same organization that said that growing wheat on one's own property for one's own use can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause has said it is, so there.
SSC
This is clearly shortsighted. Why does it stop with graduation? I say principals should be legally responsible for all bad behavior throughout your life. Let's just pick a class of people as the designated "responsibles" and absolve ourselves, our parents, our families and friends from any social responsibility. Case closed.
The First Amendment only protects you from government prosecution. Getting suspended from school clearly does not count. The most helpful way to think of it is to imagine that the school is your employer. If you worked for the Federal government, you would not imagine that simply because your boss was a government employee that you had full First Amendment rights at your job and could freely tell him to fuck off, right? School is the same thing. Students can't be criminally prosecuted for anything that you or I couldn't be prosecuted for, but they can provide discipline within the confines of that system for speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
...teachers are overpaid whiners with gold-and-fairy-dust-plated benefits and retirement packages who go home at 2pm and only work 9 months anyway. This just evens the balance and makes them work as hard as your average CEO. Thanks Fox for helping me see through their average-appearing deception!
Though not from the US this is nonsense mission creap. The Department of Education is
unconstitutional, and uses up resources that would otherwise be available to support
educarion.
They constantly interfear with the running of schools and in the British system have taken
a working system and destroyed it.
Get rid of these people and leave harrasment to the police.
Can we request the US Ed Dept be censored more? Just saying...
This sounds like an un-funded, all-stick, no-carrot mandate, like NCLB. I imagine this will hasten the departure of good school administrators.
Do you suppose that the Capitol Hill will allow schools to install Cell-Phone jamming technology to combat this sort of thing, keeping students off their cell phones during lunch and between classes? (I'm sure parents will be up in arms over something like that.)
It takes a village to raise a child, which means more than the local school needs to be accountable for the overseeing of our children. Perhaps we should include some 'legal action' that includes the children, not just the schools and administrators, we'd see better results?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Until the Government's Department of Education became involved, I would've agreed with you.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Oh for crying out loud. This is what passes for news at lame wannabe Tucker Carlson's attempt to mimic Politico? The guidance letter was published in October 2010 and you can read it here: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html
Well that document did give them the power to make those decisions.... so.... Yeah. There.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Let me just point out the "original article" here is pointing to a news editorial site run by Tucker Carlson. The actual website run by the government dealing with bullying is http://www.stopbullying.gov/
There is legislation pending in congress to make bullying more serious
(Full Text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-540)
It has little to do with the "land of the free" thing. It has more to do with, as was mentioned, harassment and threats. This isn't much of a problem for adults, because there are laws out there to protect people from being stalked, threatened, or physically attacked. The behavior wouldn't be tolerated if I did those things to you in public or at work or, often, even online.
However, children aren't given the same benefit. If an adult smacks their spouse, it's a crime. If they smack their coworker, it's a crime. If they smack their own kid, it's your right to raise your kid how you like. If other kids in school or the neighborhood (even if they're much bigger, older, or in packs than your kid) do those things to a kid, it's just "kids being kids" and "character building - toughen up!".
The problem is that they are paying all this attention to "abuse" via the internet when they should be paying attention to the shit that goes on right in front of their own eyes in their own schools where kids are supposed to be receiving an academic education in safety. Teachers don't give a fuck and will (and always have) looked the other way as kids outright beat the fuck out of other students in many-on-one incidents in their own class rooms. Or in the hallways. I saw this shit happen all the time when I was in school. I even tried to step in a few times, but because I was a jock (outside of school; not through school provided activities), I usually put a swift end to things. And then *I* was the one in trouble. So I learned that helping someone even out the odds was a risky thing to do.
I can't even imagine how some of the kids I went to school with made it through all twelve years. Since I left earlier and began my career early, I didn't see how they turned out. For all I know, some of them may have dropped out because they couldn't take coming to school for the incessant daily abuse with the unspoken permissiveness of the administration that was paid to take care of them. Perhaps some of them killed themselves. Who knows?
Either way, the answer is to stop treating it like it's a "right of passage" *AND* to stop focusing on the fucking online bullshit. If they're "attacking" each other after school in person or online, they're doing far worse in the hallways and classrooms and nobody is stepping in to do shit about it.
And yeah, I'm all for weeding out the trouble makers early on. If you don't want to be in school, then fuck off. Let the kids who want to be there receive an uninterrupted education. The world always has plenty of demand for fry cooks and ditch diggers.
Well that document did give them the power to make those decisions.... so.... Yeah. There.
Not really, took over a hundred years and a bit of pretzle logic to get to that point. I expect the newer courts will wake up and realize that the ICC(interstate commerce clause) is not a catch all for whatever the govt. wants to do. See Thomas' dissent of Gonzales v. Raich.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Bigotry is bigotry, no matter where it occurs. What I find offensive is that school officials are being directed to monitor students activities when they are outside of school and school activities. That's the line that has no business being crossed.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Right, learning how to be normal is one of the most important things our schools are there for.
Do you have references for such claims?
There is no line. Children have (almost) no rights, only their parents have rights.
I want my Cowboyneal
how much we *really* value freedom of expression.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
That won't work, beceause kids can lie about their age. I know one young person who listed her birth year as being in the early 1900s. Unless age verification is part of the process, that will never work.
Besides, if FB were taken out of the equation, more sites would pop up that cater to the youth culture. Then administrators would need to monitor even more sites.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Education Department officials need to get a grip on reality.
I would like to see them follow 1 tweet , facebook and myspace accounts for one person, let alone the 600 or so students you can have in a small school. Then asking 1 person without adding to their budget for such things, is really stupid....it shows their level of computer comprehension...none, zero, zip, nada....they know absolutely nothing about what they are asking....and that is bad, especially that they make decisions about our school system.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
One of the primary focuses of schools is to churn out cookie cutter kids. Being too smart or too awkward or too different is a detriment. Emo or goth or punk? Welcome to the school-shooter watch list! Too much of a geek? You, too! Never know when you're going to take out the abuse from that dumb jock on the entire school. In fact, that's essentially the entire purpose of society. To coerce people to lean toward the norm and not deviate.
Anyway, a decent home school education is definitely valuable -- but there's something to be said for not spending most of your life stuck indoors with mommy.
Actually, the Constitution does not anywhere specify that the Supreme Court gets to interpret what is and what is not Constitutional. That is a power that the Supreme Court gave itself. Of course, considering that the Framers of the Constitution were still in government at the time and did not object to this understanding lends weight to it. Although the fact that the ruling in which it did so was in favor of the primary author of the Constitution probably has something to do with why that was the case.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Or "So and so is a muslim and laughed at 9/11". Instant death sentence.
Please cite and example of where that actually occurred.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Why does it have to be one size fits all? Some could go to these sorts of schools, some could go to those sorts of schools. You'd just have to find a way of telling the prospective autodidacts apart from those who would crash without school, and then apply the right tool for the job.
You don't teach a child to swim by teaching them how to avoid water.
These kids are going to drown when the real world comes knocking on their door.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I'm not quite sure where you are projecting from; but my comment was a quite narrowly focused observation that childhood bullying was of the same 1st amendment salience as late-night disturbance of the peace: that is, extraordinarily minimal and well below the level of concern.
Now, that said, I have approximately zero confidence that school admin will be able to do much of anything based on this new mandate. In my school experience, adult authority figures were, without exception, useless or worse in dealing with bullies. I doubt that they've improved too much, and now their mandate is supposed to extend to the internet? Good luck with that one, guys.
However, I really must take exception to your tedious argument-from-cliche and your extraordinarily optimistic take on the level of persistence shown by bullies. Again, in my(admittedly anecdotal) experience, such behavior is far from transient and is, in fact, extremely stable over the 4 or so year horizon that a given school has to deal with. Bullies are sadistic animals and they do not respond to being ignored, or appeals to reason. Violence, however, surgically but intensely applied, had a 100% success rate. You have to speak to them in a language that they understand.
Raise your hand if you truly, sincerely believe that this will never be used to punish kids who gripe about their teachers or administration. After all, if Johnny tells his parents that Mrs. Smith is mean and picks on him, then he's clearly usurping her authority and disrupting her teaching and the school must put a stop to it.
Remember, "it's for the kids" is always a lie. Always. Without exception.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I agree with you when it comes to young kids where the label "petty shit" applies, but that's not the purpose of this action. What this is meant to address is the rising number of suicides by teens who are being persistently stalked and bullied beyond their ability to "roll it off". We're talking actual abuse here- intentional long-term malice which would result in criminal charges or restraining orders for adults. It may not be an ideal solution (educating kids to handle being picked on is probably more acceptable/constitutional in theory), but kids are dying and parents are right to be concerned about theirs, and schools are already strapped for cash without having to worry about lawsuits.
Because those different education methodologies will almost by nature have different costs per student. As a taxpayer, people feel like they have a right to expect that their kids have the same chance at the "better" education. And if their kid is in the regular old public school they shouldn't have to pay for the advanced education that the gifted students are receiving.
It's a bit of an issue right now in Massachusetts (US). Our public school system includes a number of publicly funded charter schools. Some of these schools are really great learning environments. The problem is that these schools are selective, and cost more per student to run than the public school system. Parents of kids who have been rejected from these schools are campaigning to eliminate these special schools or to bring their funding in line with the public system, which will effectively close them.
Unless we can guarantee that there will be an appropriate teaching tool for all the kids in the system, there will be resistance from the parents whose kids don't receive the specialized education.
Right, because there's a drug use exception to the First Amendment. No, this is a pretty egregious example of how out of touch with reality our Supreme Court is. If they can make up one bullshit exemption to the First Amendment, they can exempt anything they want.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Is *none* of their damned business. It the child's parents responsibility. Period.
While in school, sure, they can enforce restrictions that don't pertain to the job of providing an education, but that ends once the school day is over.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I wouldn't have taken that comment sarcastically at all.
Seriously, one of the major functions of school systems is to allow kids to socialize and learn social behaviors. It is unfortunate when the social pressure to homogenize is unchecked, that socialization experience is really really important. Kids need to be able to express themselves, but they also need to learn when to keep their mouths shut and conform to social norms. The real world isn't a Breakfast Club utopia, kids need to learn when socially deviant behavior (bullying included) is inappropriate.
Anyway, a decent home school education is definitely valuable -- but there's something to be said for not spending most of your life stuck indoors with mommy.
100% agree with you there. I was fortunate to have a combination of a fairly normal/tolerant school and parents that kept teaching when I was at home. There's no reason to dichotomize home schooling or school schooling.
The First Amendment only protects you from government prosecution. Getting suspended from school clearly does not count.
Yet the school is acting as an agency of the government, is it not? *especially* in this case where the directive is coming from the federal level?
A hundred years? Judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison, a few years after the Constitution about only 16 years after the Constitution was adopted.
A child has not proven they can be treated as an adult. Like it or not, they really are different.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I read an article by Richard Hammond about that episode, and in the episode they made it look like the hosts were in A LOT less danger than they really were.
Ah finally dug it up:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/features/article6858884.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What a twisted bit of reporting. The Daily Caller is upset because this policy would recognize harassment of gay students as a bad thing, and this apparently threatens the superstitious beliefs of its target demographic. (Many of them -- and try not to laugh -- believe that an omnipotent, all-loving invisible person in the sky will sentence a person's ghost to eternal torment if that person is gay.)
This isn't about the free expression of ideas, it's about harassment. Harassment is, and should be, against both the law and school policy. If a boss is sexually harassing an employee, say constantly calling them at home to ask for a date, "it happened out of the office" is not a defense -- every intelligent person understands that the consequences of that harassment reach into the workplace. Same with school bullying; as the letter quoted in the article correctly states, it "creates a hostile environment ... [which can] limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Thomas is the biggest supporter on the Court for the proposition that the school can oversee students' speech and behavior.
then all of a sudden everybody decided words were the worst thing that could happen to a child. Perhaps parents who act like petty shit like this is a big deal are the reason petty shit like this seems to be such a big deal to kids now.
They started deciding this when kids started killing themselves. This isn't all petty.
*cough*
The United States already incarcerates a higher percentage of it's population than some "evil" countries do. Somehow, I don't think that allowing kids to drop out of school would have as much impact as you think.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The right of a child to express themselves is superseded by the right of the parents to guide that child in the way the child expresses themselves. The Convention would have taken the parents rights away. The whole purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child was to take away the rights of the parents and give those rights to the State (Government). The Convention is an invention of Liberals/Progressives who believe that children should not have parental discipline in their lives but rather be raised by a State run by those self same Liberals/Progressives who think they are smarter than everyone else and think that the parents are incompetent to raise their children. That is why the USA did not ratify the treaty.
And to treat the comments of another commenter, you may think that children are treated as chattel. They are not. They are the responsibility of their parents until they reach majority and therefore under the authority and responsibility of their parents and others that are responsible for them until this point in life. I would hazard a guess that your parents "limited" you as far as you are concerned; it was and is the right of parents to do so within the scope of their responsibility and authority. In the USA when you reach 18 you are allowed to totally screw up your life as much as you want.
A helluva lot closer than these assholes are placing it. Argument is becoming useless, but I don't relish the idea of having to shoot people yet.. We're getting closer though. Time to throw a hearty "FUCK YOU!" to the censors. In lead if needed.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Then you missed:
Under the new interpretation, principals and their schools are legally liable if they fail to curb “harassment” of students, even if it takes place outside the school, on Facebook or in private conversation among a few youths.
So now the schools become liable for stuff happening outside of school. While this is certainly bad stuff and kids need some "re-education" if they are doing it, this is pushing into a dangerous slippery slope, expecting the schools to be proxy parents 24x7, and follow them everywhere. Next thing you know, your principle might be sued or go to jail just because you fail to RTFA.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
That's where ideas like this lose me. If adults did stuff like this, they'd be subject to legal sanctions, therefore...schools should do that for kids? No, not at all. Therefore kids should ALSO be subject to those legal sanctions and schools should continue to exercise only the authority they actually have. They should stick to their proverbial knitting, which they're already bad enough at that they clearly need to try harder.
Hahahahha!! That's the funniest thing I've read this month!
I'm a curriculum manager, and I always have to just smile politely and bite my tongue when talking to dumbass homeschool proponents who don't know the first damn thing about education.
Supreme court precedence has ruled in loco parentis, effectively limiting childrens' consitutional rights while in custody of the school.
In true /. form, I have not RTFA yet. However, I can speak on this currently looks like in the real trenches of middle school. We have no interest in what kids do on the weekends or evenings, and little ability to monitor it. I am busy enough that even if I could scrape 400+ student Facebook pages, I would have no time to do so.
The only exception to this is when an online posting creates on-campus disruption. Then we do indeed act, using existing law. Nothing is allowed to disrupt the learning environment, plain and simple. New law is not needed to address this, in my opinion.
If your cyber life remains in the cyber realm, I don't care. If you disrupt or distract at my school, I'll handle it. It is essentially that simple.
Not everything that makes this government run is enumerated in the Constitution. To be honest, I've never heard anyone advocate the Supreme Court being stripped of their job of ruling on constitutionality. Well maybe that's not true. I'm pretty sure the hot air on right wing talk radio is always complaining about "legislating from the bench" which is code for "I disagree with constitutional lawyers, even though I'm not remotely qualified enough myself to argue constitutional law".
The most helpful way to think of it is to imagine that the school is your employer.
Actually, the most helpful way to think of it is to imagine the school as your parent, since that's exactly what in loco parentis is.
So, if your coworkers decided to start following you around outside of work hours harassing you, it would not result in them getting their asses fired?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It's a bit of an issue right now in Massachusetts (US). Our public school system includes a number of publicly funded charter schools. Some of these schools are really great learning environments. The problem is that these schools are selective, and cost more per student to run than the public school system. Parents of kids who have been rejected from these schools are campaigning to eliminate these special schools or to bring their funding in line with the public system, which will effectively close them.
Sadly, the concept of increasing funding for the other kids never is given serious thought. Here's empirical evidence that if you spend an additional $X, you get demonstratively better results - why wouldn't parents be yelling because only selected kids get the bonus cash? No-one wants their kid to go to the bad school.
Amish kids don't generally win Intel prizes for math and the Spelling Bee.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/1831247/17-Year-Old-Wins-Intels-100K-Science-Prize
No, the main function of US school is to train drones to sit in a factory for 8 hours a day and work.
The US school system was designed to take rural kids and train them for the industrial future, unfortunately it never updated properly.
Now, that said, I have approximately zero confidence that school admin will be able to do much of anything based on this new mandate. In my school experience, adult authority figures were, without exception, useless or worse in dealing with bullies. I doubt that they've improved too much, and now their mandate is supposed to extend to the internet? Good luck with that one, guys.
I'd be forced to agree - if anything, anti-bullying rules tend to get enforced against the bullied when they try to stand up for themselves. Bullies know the rules. They know where and when the teachers aren't watching, and they know exactly how far they can push before the school is forced to take action - it's their specialty, after all. I've never known a bullied kid to be rescued by school authority. Standing up for themselves, yes. Other kids stepping in, definitely. The school? Not gonna happen.
And the reason why is simple - behind every bully is a parent who thinks that their Little Angel Couldn't Possibly Have Done Such A Thing. And they will fight tooth and nail with the school when Little Bobby gets in trouble. So unless Bobby does something so egregious that the school can't turn a blind eye, they're not going to pick that fight.
If parents want bullying at their schools to stop, they need to teach their kids to stand up to bullies - not just the ones bullying them, but all bullies. You see a kid getting picked on, you go help.
As an aside, I'm dying to know how they're expecting teachers to enforce this sort of thing - will all students be required to hand over usernames and passwords so the school can monitor communications?
It's known in Australia, among other places, as tall poppy syndrome. Why bother to elevate yourself when it's much easier to just cut down anyone who dares to rise above you and your mediocre peers?
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
True. But your argument falls apart when you don't happily ignore the fact that children are far less likely to take the necessary legal action to protect themselves (ie telling their parents). And in the cases being addressed, they are actually causing themselves even more harm.
If you want to push for more parental (vs. school) responsibility, that's fine, but you can't reasonably expect the kids to be their own only line of defense until they actually hit adulthood. Even at adulthood we're not doing great at helping our returning vets live through their respective hardships. Emotional traumas aren't solved by ignoring them- they only get worse and lay persons are woefully inadequate at addressing them.
Surely the measure of a country is less the number of its population who are incarcerated, and more the number of its population who are executed for opposing the government and who have their organs harvested without consent?
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I was replying specifically to the person who said, "Well that document did give them the power to make those decisions.... so.... Yeah. There." I was pointing out that, in fact, the Constitution does not give them the power to make those decisions. I was not arguing about whether or not it is appropriate for them to have that power.
I believe that the Constitution did not specify who had the final say as to what was and was not Constitutional for two basic reasons. One, the Framers expected each and every government official to consider whether a given action or bill was Constitutional and not conduct said action, or vote for said bill, if they believed that it was not. And two, the Framers believed that the Constitution was clearly written and easily understood by anyone who genuinely desired to do so.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What ever happened to "hey - here's two pairs of boxing gloves - go behind the gym and work it out?"
That's just brilliant. A big bully is picking on the little kid so you tell them to go out back and fight!?! Where did you learn about justice? The witch trial in Monty Python and the Holy Grail? That was supposed to be funny not a lesson in practical jurisprudence.
This is slashdot, news for nerds, you know the little smart guys who got beat up as kids, not the big oafish bullies who did the beating. The anon coward, and the idiots who modded this up should all be banned from slashdot since they clearly are NOT real nerds.
Though perhaps I'm not being entirely fair. I forgot about that other type of nerd, the completely maladapted sociopaths that are smart but incapable of sympathy and as adults have entirely forgotten what it was like to be young and harassed.
-- QED
In the scenario you describe, who bears responsibility for monitoring the "bad" employees' behavior? The harassed employee can report them. I would not tolerate a representative of my employer following me around or nosing into the "bad" employees social network posts just to find out if they are being bad.
If a student comes to the school administrations and lets them know that other students are harassing them (inside or outside of school), then the administration has some basis for following up with the alleged offenders. I don't ever want to see it codified that school administrators must dig around in kids' out-of-school lives to find potential abuse/mistreatment of others.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Good. It's about fucking time schools are forced to start taking responsibility for ensuring a harassment-free environment. That it's taken so damned long is a travesty.
The root cause is kids that have poor values, role models, or are insecure that leads to online and other bullying. The US Dept of Ed (or perhaps the principals) should require all kids to join a scouting program, be it American Heritage Girls, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Venturing, Campfire, etc. These programs all have a goal to help develop character, citizenship, and making ethical and moral choices over a lifetime.
"normal kid's can't function in a Montessori school"
Absolute bullshit. My daughter went to a Montessori school. Their students ranged from the brilliant to the slightly retarded.
If you'd have the autodidacts go to a Montessori school (I only know it from my education, I haven't been to one myself) you could have them blossom to their maximum capacity, but normal kid's can't function in a Montessori school.
My city has a public Montessori school. My kids go there, and I assure you there's little difference between the average Montessori kid and the average "regular" school student. The primary difference is that you have to request to transfer your kid there from their "home school", so the Montessori students are from families who have at least enough interest in their child's education to bother with the paperwork. Still, there are brilliant kids and below-average kids in those classrooms. I'm not sure why you think a "normal" child can't function in a Montessori school when every scrap of evidence is to the contrary.
Montessori doesn't mean "kids do whatever they want all day". It means they have a set of goals - a "contract" - they that need to accomplish and have a fair amount of leeway regarding the order they do them in. If my son breezes through math but needs a little extra time in social studies, then that's how he allocates his day. He isn't stuck bored in math class while the slower kids catch up, or scrambling to follow along in social studies while the other kids race by.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Whatever bad behavior we see documented online today, the same has been happening live and in person forever.
It is laughable to try solve the online bullying/ harassment/ sex/ drugs/etc. problem by trying to keep people offline. Online is not the thing we need to eliminate.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
You would doubt someone who nearly learned punctuation, grammar, and spelling?
And yet the Amish remain a very wealthy culture, moreso than just about any other sizable cultural group (unless you cheat and defing "the rich" as a cultural group). They also seem fairly happy and well-adjusted as Americans go.
"How to be a good manufacturing line worker" is a remarkable valueless and crappy thing to teach these days, yet that's still the primary focus of our school system.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Education is a state and local responsibility. There shouldn't even be a federal department of education. More bloated government bureaucracy diminishes everyone's freedom. Just go away. -
I should start signing all my letters as /b/ :D
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
There are states that still allow that? Really?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The highest Amish population county in the United States, Holmes County Ohio has a per capita income of $14,197
The county to the north of Holmes, which isn't largely Amish, has a per capita income of $18,330.
I bet American Jews, American Persians and Lebanese Americans are wealthier cultural groups with higher per capita incomes, just three off the top of my head.
Here's empirical evidence that if you spend an additional $X, you get demonstratively better results - why wouldn't parents be yelling because only selected kids get the bonus cash?
You have a strange definition of evidence then. The charter schools pick their students, and you assume money is the reason their students do better and not the fact that they PICK THEIR STUDENTS? Even when, if you look nationwide, district by district, there is no correlation between per-student spending and academic performance?
Out of curiosity, do you also think John Edwards's television show is evidence that he is psychic?
He was referring to Wickard v Fillburn, which was in 1942. That's over 150 years.
> The United States already incarcerates a higher percentage of it's population than some "evil" countries do
"Some"? The word you are looking for is "all". The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Excellent post from someone who was not harassed in school. You are looking at this from the point of view of a mature adult. Get out of yourself for a minute and think about it from the point of view of a thirteen year old smart, shy, overweight girl with glasses. Every time you go to school all you hear is nerd, fatty, four eyes, lezbo. Others laugh when they hear it. Every time you hear it you feel physical pain. You see the same posts on Facebook. You can never escape the pain. You start to believe you are worthless.
Here are a couple of points that you seem to ignore.
1. There are many forms of speech that are not protected by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Liable, slander, hate and harassment are four of them. Would you prefer the school deal with these issues or would you rather have the courts clogged.
2. These are children we are talking about. They are emotionally and logically immature. The harassers do not understand the consequences of their actions and what kind of speech is protected. The victims do not have the defences an adult has and have a tendency to believe anything if heard often enough. Saying "get a thicker skin" is irrelevant because that children have no emotional skin. Saying "grow up" also doesn't work because that takes time and hormones.
Children need to know what is protected speech and what is not. School is a great place to learn that.
Yep. I know a few people who homeschool, and, frankly, it's not for a reason I would consider valid.
The only reason these people homeschool their kids is so that their children don't have to be exposed to ideas contradictory to their indoctrination (like the devil's tool, evolution). It's not that these people think they can provide a truly better education -- in fact, it's quite the opposite: they want their kids to only see one point of view, ever.
What really bothers me is that a girl I went to high school with receives food stamps and welfare payments, despite being perfectly capable of getting a decent job. She says she's going to homeschool her kids, which, frankly, I think is BS -- let me get this right, you're gonna homeschool your kids for the sole purpose of "protecting" them from "evil" ideas like evolution and sex, while we give you money so you can stay home and do so instead of being a productive member of society?
I am all for holding kids to the same standards of conduct as adults, for the most part. This "assault is ok because it's part of growing up" bullshit is ridiculous as a justification for doing fuckall. If a school employee hits a student (even in self-defense), that's more or less immediate suspension, if not termination; if a student hits another student because they can, nothing gets done; sometimes, if the victim fights back, they get in trouble, while nothing happens to the instigator.
What the hell is wrong with us that we have decided that victims fighting back is somehow unacceptable while bullies picking on others is fine? If bullies can hit, the victim should be allowed to, as well. Or no one should be allowed to hit. Stop the damn double standard.
So "might makes right"? What if one is significantly smaller than the bully? What if the bully always has friends around? I was physically abused by other students and was in several fights. They never helped. If I lost I got beat up again. If I won they went and got friends to help them next time. Fist fights by children is never a solution even temporary.
Exactly.
Somehow, education for people who work hard and actually give a damn isn't popular anymore (look at Corbett's budget proposal in PA). God forbid, however, that you kick out a dipshit asshole who disrupts things on a daily basis, because education is his right.
Where did I ever say I expect kids to be their only line of defense? I neither said it nor believe it. What I do believe is that schools have zero authority beyond school grounds or during school functions (field trips, for example, or bussing to and from school). Just because a problem exists doesn't give random people or groups authority to interfere in others lives. Schools sometimes seem to think they're The Kid Police. They are not. It's no more appropriate for them to do this than for me to declare that I'm going to begin supervising teachers starting tomorrow and suspending those who aren't up to my standards. Should someone be doing that? Absolutely. Do I have the authority? No.
As many have pointed out, adults have recourse that kids don't generally have. THAT is the problem. Fix the problem. If an adult was subjected to the typical bullying experience, they'd get a restraining order and the idiot would wise up or go to jail. It's about time we get through our heads that kids are people, too, and deserving of every protection you or I have.
Given that reality, I find it humorous that the /. crowd that is always arguing that it is the job of the parent (not the government) to control a child's internet access (a sentiment I agree with), now argues that schools, which are obligated to act as the parent during the school day, should not meet these obligations when it comes to the internet.
They are obligated to stop bullying in the schoolyard, but some here want them to ignore bullying in social media (often done while using school resources, mind you). Apparently the tubez on the interwebz are immune from their responsibilities now?
Those of us who are parents send our kids to school with the knowledge that the school is empowered to act as our agent. This protects our kids. This protection should not stop when kids sit down at a keyboard.
Of course such a rule could (and inevitably would) be misused by a teacher or principal. What rules would be left if we eliminated all of them that could be misapplied by corrupt or selfish authorities?
As to your broad assertion that anyone claiming anything done for the children is lying, I know that to be false. (The way you framed the argument only requires a single counter example). My wife has been teaching for many, many years and I have been a part of decisions she has made to confront parents, argue with administration and generally do things not in her self interest. On those occasions it has been for the good of a child.
There is no law that keeps me from giving my girlfriend a good sound spanking as long as she consents. ^_^
That's silly, but I guess that's why it's called politics. Different classes have different costs and requirements, and so differentiation already exists: by age, and in the case of acceleration, by ability as well.
Though they really mean white, male landowners, we've expanded that definition to include all citizens of voting age. Children, alas, do not fully qualify.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Income and wealth are entirely different things. Understanding the difference is the most fundamental step in becoming wealthy. Pointless slashdot arguments aside: you will do yourself a great favor by understanding this deeply.
The Amish basically spend all non-survival money on accumulation of wealth (in the form of land and livestock, and while livestock isn't the best form of wealth it is an asset), as accumulating bling is anathema. They typically pass their accumulated weath down from generation to generation within family lines. Per capita, they own a susprising amount of land these days, even though they may accumulate it slowly. Or at least so said a front page atricle on the Wall Street Journal, back when it was a reputable paper (man, that seems like a long time ago now).
BTW, if you look at income by religion in America, Hindus are in the lead, followed by Jews (both of which average over 100K household income IIRC). But a lot of the income paid to Indian software developers goes back home to India - building a future, to be sure, but not so much accumulated as family wealth in America.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Here's empirical evidence that if you spend an additional $X, you get demonstratively better results - why wouldn't parents be yelling because only selected kids get the bonus cash?
You have a strange definition of evidence then. The charter schools pick their students, and you assume money is the reason their students do better and not the fact that they PICK THEIR STUDENTS? Even when, if you look nationwide, district by district, there is no correlation between per-student spending and academic performance?
I assumed it was obvious that if you cherry-pick your students you're going to get better results "on average". (Which ignores issues of what other programs the school offers - for instance, the school my daughter will attend this fall has the lowest scores for an "advanced placement" school because they *also* offer "developmentally challenged" and those scores drag the school average down). But does it not beg the question - if you're already getting to pick-and-choose your students, why do you need extra money per student? I would think that if anything, charter schools should need *less* money per student.
Out of curiosity, do you also think John Edwards's television show is evidence that he is psychic?
Couldn't tell you - don't watch it.
And your wife is now a legislator who passes laws (or a bureaucrat who issues regulations) "for the children", plural, which is the context of my statement?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The advisory also links to the Education Departments advisory letter about the first amendment. Exerpt: "OCR has received inquiries regarding whether OCR's regulations are intended to restrict speech activities that are protected under the First Amendment. I want to assure you in the clearest possible terms that OCR's regulations are not intended to restrict the exercise of any expressive activities protected under the U.S. Constitution. OCR has consistently maintained that the statutes that it enforces are intended to protect students from invidious discrimination, not to regulate the content of speech. " It can be found here: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.html
Eating the brains of your enemies does not make you smarter. But it's still fun.
Where did I ever say I expect kids to be their only line of defense?
You just did it again. You're saying it's the kid's responsibility to press charges against the bully. That's unrealistic. What is realistic is a proactive approach, whether by schools and/or parents, somebody has to monitor kids for indicative behavior.
Just because a problem exists doesn't give random people or groups authority to interfere in others lives.
More nonsense. Schools are not "random groups"- they have responsibilities towards the children who attend them to provide a safe environment. You make it sound like the principal of G.W. High is abusing his authority by monitoring the kids going to T.A.Edison High. That's an absurd argument, since we're only talking about cases where both the bully and the victim attend G.W. and the source of their interaction is school.
And it was established by the judiciary. Coincidence? I think not!
SSC
He was responding to a response to the statement "that document did give them the power to make those decisions"; it is unclear whether he was referring to judicial review in general or ICC.
I think the drive is pretty much that schools can be used by governments as indoctrination camps. Subject kids all their lives to surveillance and privacy invasion and most will get used to it even if told about amendments and fluff. Couple that with forcing most kids to go to such schools, and you create a new batch of citizens that will think and act more like serfs than citizens. Why would anybody raise an eyebrow at the government snooping their every move and controlling their every action if they grew up that way?
+Raider of the lost BBS
To hold the principal of the school responsible for the conduct of those under his or her supervision is one thing, while they are within the confines of his or her jurisdiction, but it seems they have neglected a key factor in the equation, the parents of the misbehaving. I have listened to 10 year olds tell their parents to go f* themselves. I have seen children do ruthless things to other children, as their parent stood there and watched. The parents may have their children for a few hours in the evening and on weekends but guess who has to babysit them through out the working day. Should it be the responsibility of the principal for their developed attitudes? It should be the responsibility of the parent to get a handle on their kids. I am no pro for beating a child till they are black and blue but parenting as a whole, has become soft. Parents are more reluctant these days to punish their children appropriately.
The important line is the tear-off strip in the packaging of the box of condoms. Use that and you don't need to worry about shit like this.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
However, I really must take exception to your tedious argument-from-cliche and your extraordinarily optimistic take on the level of persistence shown by bullies. Again, in my(admittedly anecdotal) experience, such behavior is far from transient and is, in fact, extremely stable over the 4 or so year horizon that a given school has to deal with. Bullies are sadistic animals and they do not respond to being ignored, or appeals to reason. Violence, however, surgically but intensely applied, had a 100% success rate. You have to speak to them in a language that they understand.
It depends on your definition of bullying - specifically how malicious someone needs to be before they go from asshole to bully.
There's a lot of low-grade petty bullshit which really does go away if you ignore it properly. That's mostly coming from the mass of kids who are insensitive but not particularly enthusiastic about their cruelty. They want a quick laugh if they can get one, they know there's a chance some kid will get upset, they'll use the opportunity to do some little thing when they see him in the hall, but they're not gonna do fuck all beyond that because their attention spans frankly aren't that long. If you don't react to them, you're not worth their while, and they'll move on to another target.
From the victim's point of view, well...that's about as bad as the sociopathic fucks can be. The sociopaths, at least, aren't everywhere at once - in every hall, bathroom, buss, and classroom - and you can often see them coming and prepare. It also engenders a sense of alienation that leaves the victim especially vulnerable to the real sociopaths, who's victims tend to be a subset of the kids the student body designates to be the outsiders.
I imagine most people who say "oh just ignore them and it'll be better - worked great for me!" were either only suffering from the general low-grade shit or they suffered from both but became less attractive targets for the bullies once they'd stopped being everyone else's target and moved a step or two up the social ladder.
That said, GP needs to work on his tone and stop conflating cliches or his personal experience with the whole of reality.
In my school experience, adult authority figures were, without exception, useless or worse in dealing with bullies.
Your experience roughly matches mine.
The only way they were useful is if you could trick them into monitoring the situation without actually reporting it (even indirectly). Shit like, if someone's harassing you at your locker, you keep requesting a new lock every other month (at a time when other students are in the office close enough to overhear) because maybe you forgot your locker open (though you swear you remember locking it up), but you think someone might have seen your combo (no, nobody in particular, and you certainly wouldn't make an accusation without evidence), and now some of your stuff's gone missing, again...
But that's only going to work for a very small subset of the bullied and only in schools where the administration hasn't completely detached itself from the spirit of its responsibilities.