Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:00:54 EST
In a message dated 2/3/01 10:40:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
If you're not certain of the exact "working" (wording?), then how can you
so easily declare that this was about punishing the child and finding a
scapegoat for the school? What was the danger? Who was endangered? Your
argument is based in the JC-as-punishment perspective, with which I take
issue. It's about bearing responsibility for one's choices, not
punishment. At Alpine Valley, behavior that presents a real or potential
harm to personal safety is not permitted. If that is what this school
determined to have happened (repeatedly, at that), then maybe they were
doing what they believed was most appropriate toward the goal of ensuring
that the behavior didn't keep recurring.
Perhaps you know more of this story than your post indicates. I, for my
part, would wait until I knew more of the circumstances before passing
judgment on this school in this case.
I'm not necessarily "passing judgement on the scool". I am, however, hoping
that the Sud schools take on the responsibilty, via school meeting, the rules
or lack thereof. There was no closed campus policy. Therefore, there was no
rule that prohibited the child to leave. He left, repeatedly. It made the
school look bad to the authorities. The child broke no rule. It was an open
campus to all ages, he left.
It's an issues most Sud schools face in these potentially dangerous times. I
know of the facts, because I've talked with the mother of the child, the
child, staff members, and looked at J.C. records and the school rules.
My point is this: Have an open campus. Don't have an open campus. Either
way, be prepared to deal with the consequences of that decision. No matter
what the agreement is between the parent/child, the legal responsibility will
inevitably fall with the school.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:33 EST