Re: DSM: Re: GrannyPitt


Mike Sadofsky (sadofsky@mediaone.net)
Sat, 01 Apr 2000 07:04:12 -0500


WarOnTies@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/28/00 11:41:46 PM, Fxrs83@aol.com writes:
>
> << t would seem to defeat the purpose of the school, if, by and large, it
> were a
> place that students didn't attend. (Or worse, attended only when they had
> nothing better to do.) The commitment has to go both ways. >>
>
> If they have something better to do than be in school, shouldn't they be
> doing it?
>
> ~woty
Of course. That option is ALWAYS open to people. They have
the freedom to choose what they will do and when they will
do it.
One role that is extended to the students when they enroll,
is the freedom to participate in the school's governance.
>From the School's perspective, this carries with it some
obligation to spend enough time at School to understand the
process and issues.
As a School, the institution also has certain obligations.
Among these is an obligation to abide with school attendance
laws, which in Massachusetts require regular attendance for
5 hours per day for those under 16 years.
So the student has choices. For example:
occasional "something better" events are not in conflict,
some "something better" opportunities might be converted to
"school" events, that is , school excursions, or
should the student's "something better" opportunities
conflict with the students ability to attend with reasonable
regularity and be a member of the school community, then the
student has asserted a clear "choice."
There exist many "drop in" centers; SVS isn't designed to be
such.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Sep 26 2000 - 14:58:30 EDT