Re: DSM: [SVS Discussion Board] Re: Child Safety


Andrew Smallman (andy@pscs.org)
Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:51:29 -0700 (PDT)


Hey Scott,

Thanks for the response. I certainly understand the fine-line to which
you refer below.

Another question -- was there discussion around the idea of all students
having the same rules, regardless of age? I know there are many, many
precedents in our society for age-based qualifications (driving, voting,
drinking, etc.), but those are often seen by youth (and adults!) as
completely arbitrary. Also, could a "mature" 12 year-old petition the
school meeting and get a waiver or something, based on demonstrated
responsibility?

Personally, I don't like decisions being made solely on age, hence the
bias in my questions. I'm hoping there is a way around it. ;)

Thanks again,

        ---Andy -- Puget Sound Community School, Seattle

On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Scott Gray wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm Scott Gray, from the Sudbury Valley School in Massachusetts.
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Andrew Smallman wrote:
>
> > My question has to do with how the age markers were determined. Mike
> > wrote, "Those between eight and thirteen years old are required to 'sign
> > out' and be accompanied when they take advantage of the 'open campus'
> > policy. Those under eight years (who typically lack parental permission to
> > leave campus), are now constrained as well by a school policy that
> > restricts them to campus except for organized 'school excursions'."
>
> An examination of local law and precedent, and a gut decision as to
> what the lowest age is that could be defended in the Massachusetts
> courts if we were ever challenged. It really is a gut decision --
> whatever number one puts forward, some people would be much more
> comfortable if it were a little higher, and others are convinced that
> we could adequately defend an age that is a little lower.
>
> --Scott David Gray



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Sep 26 2000 - 14:58:31 EDT