When I was in high school I was accused (I didn’t do it) of pulling a knife on a girl one year behind me.
A call came to my parents (making the question at hand rather moot)
BUT
Had I been called to the principal’s office because of such a situation, having somebody there as moral support would definitely be in my interests I would think - remembering also that I was a bit of a nerd, and would have been quaking in my boots in such a situation. Making me very easily bullied if the Principal happened to give credence to the accusation.
It’s not always the case. A guy I knew in HS always claimed people were on his case. I bumped into him at my last reunion. He’s running a business, writes poetry (and computer code), plays all kinds of music, has a few little kids (that are ridiculously smart), his parents were both very support and, I think, both published authors. He WAS picked on by the staff/admin in high school because he was a punk. He skipped a class here and there or didn’t do some of his homework because it was academically below him (a lot of the books we’d read, he had read years ago), he smoked weed and the teachers/staff could probably guess it, but the biggest problem, the reason he was picked on by the admins is because he was essentially profiled based on how he looked. Leather jacket, wallet chains, black jeans, metal spikes on his boots, liberty spikes, day dreaming in class. He was perfectly ‘docile’ and not at all a trouble maker, so to speak, but he was essentially one of The Usual Suspects.
Basically, if I did every thing he did in high school (instead of him), I probably wouldn’t have been in half as much trouble as him because I was just a nerdy looking kid. He looked like he was ‘heading down the wrong path’.
So, some kids say that because they’re ‘profiled’, some kids say it because of trouble at home (and getting in to trouble at school could cause a cycle) and, frankly I’d guess that most kids that say it, say it because they’re always doing something wrong. Whether they put together the fact that they’re getting in trouble for doing things wrong…I don’t know. I mean, watch Cops and watch how many people truly don’t understand that they did something wrong or claim that they’re getting harassed by the Cops when we all watched them do something wrong.
All this talk makes me wonder if the school should have some kind of ‘student advocate’. A person, always in the building that would have some kind of background in law (maybe?) or at least very well versed in local/state/federal school guidelines, it would probably be one or all of the guidance counselors, that could argue for the student when things start to get heated. This person would get called as soon as a student or admin requested them and there’d be certain infractions (drugs, weapons etc)for which they’d be required to be present. It would be (IMO) a nice ‘in between’ way of dealing with these things so it could be taken care of here and now without having to get parents involved. Perhaps these meetings would be recorded as well.
So, a student gets sent to the office because the teacher says the student came back from lunch reeking of pot. The student says it was just his friend’s in the car smoking, not him. Principal makes some kind of demand (suspension for drug use? Locker search? Turn over the friends? I don’t know), but the student advocate can come and remind the principal that ‘smelling like weed’ isn’t illegal or against any school policy and how about we just settle for a detention and leave it at that, no questions asked. Everyone agrees, no parents called, no friends ratted out, student stops getting high at lunch (or is at least more careful about it). Of course, if he continues to come back stinking of weed, the principal has other methods of dealing with it, such as dropping a dime to the local cops so they can pull him over and letting them know his car will probably have pot in it. But maybe after the meeting, the Student Advocate can have a talk with the student to let them know these things “hey, I got you off this time (you know and I know wink wink) but that principal has other tricks up his sleeve, so I’d suggest not getting high at lunch any more, besides, even if it really wasn’t you, this is sort of a one time thing”.
I’m shocked, that’s right, shocked at the lack of trust displayed. This whole incident has me dismayed. I feel an attack of the vapors coming on, but before I fade away, here it is.
That might just win the “most inappropriate response to a cite request” award, if we ever get around to making it. But anyway thanks for the cite. There’s an interesting bit you left out, though: it’s over three decades old. Education has changed a tiny bit since 1983.
You use this study to support your conclusion that “You’d be hard put to find someone who shouldn’t” homeschool their kids; indeed this is about the only support you offer for this conclusion. If your claim was that “You would have been hard put to find someone in Arkansas in 1983 who shouldn’t have homeschooled their kids,” you’d be on (very slightly) firmer ground. And then perhaps those vapors wouldn’t affect you so.
Without going into too much detail, yeah, I have a sense of what’s going on with the kid at home. That said, that’s not relevant to why I shared the story. Specifically, I shared the story to illustrate a situation in which a defense attorney would not be helpful to anyone involved.
I have to stop and ask - what does “messing around” mean? Littering? Smoking cigarettes? Masturbation? Not wearing proper uniform? Possessing a teacher’s edition of a textbook? Is “messing around” a technical term of art in the school’s disciplinary code, or is it more teacher shorthand for “stuff you ought not to have done”?
Nothing very serious, the sort of thing generally handled by a “knock it off, kid” talk the first time–but I try to be nonspecific when discussing my students. As an illustration, you can fill it in with the particular trifling nonsense that works for you :).
I’m sure of the value of an education provided by an education-industrial complex comprised of equal portions of money, politics, and influence. But hey, if it’s working out for you, knock yourself out. They sure seem to be doing a bang up job. We just need a couple more layers of administrators to ensure that no money gets wasted educating kids.
Pretty accurately, yes. Mostly an autodidact, it was decided early on in my academic career, I think it was second grade, that education wasn’t for me and I was sent to the vocational track. It put me at some disadvantage when I eventually started college as an adult, sometime in my mid twenties, really so long ago I don’t accurately remember. I just kind of chipped away at it, six credits one semester, maybe seven the next. I was working full time and had a family by then so more or less a hobby.
I eventually got a bachelor’s degree, one of those interdisciplinary things where they just weigh your transcript. I think they were a little nonplussed by the fact that I had 180 undergraduate credits and no degree in sight. Private schools mostly, when I could get my employer to pay for it, Union College for a lot of it, State University of New York schools the rest of the time. I gave the Franciscans a shot at me at Siena, and the Sisters of St. Joseph got a few semesters in at the College of St. Rose.
You’ve got to ask a more specific question for me to know what you mean by “changed for the better.” But the basics are publicly available:
The problem, though, is that your previous cite doesn’t come anywhere close meeting the level of acceptable, so it’s very difficult to refute it. If I declare that the average American diet contains too much goose fat, and my evidence for this proposition is what my grandma served at Thanksgiving dinner in 1979, I’m not really in a position to demand that you cite the lower levels of goose fat in today’s diet.
My citation isn’t an anecdote, it is a doctoral thesis from 1983. Your position is, “It isn’t like that any more” and you claim that requires no evidence other than your unsupported opinion? If it isn’t like that any more there must be evidence of such. Where is it? My position is that the typical principal is not significantly different now than in 1983, which, by the way, was not the Triassic period. Why, I imagine there are dozens, if not hundreds, of members of this very group who were in school even before 1983 and have first hand experience of this.
It’s either on the topic, or it isn’t. If it is, then no effort to refute it has been made and the point is conceded. The fact that some find it difficult to refute is no reason to excuse either distinguishing it entirely, or bearing the burden of rejoinder.