Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:34:47 EST
In a message dated 2/4/2001 11:02:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
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
or lack thereof. There was no closed campus policy. Therefore, there was
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
campus to all ages, he left.
It's an issues most Sud schools face in these potentially dangerous times.
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.
This discussion keeps on going without any indication that the originator
understands the issues. The repeated use of "The child broke no rule" gets
us nowhere unless the author, who claims "I know of the facts", tells us
specifically what rule the JC claimed the child broke when they charged him -
and when, I presume, he pled guilty, or else went to trial on a not-guilty
plea and was found guilty. Unless the school in question is not a Sudbury
school, there is no way that a sentence could be issued without a specific
rule violation being established. Unless the author tells us, from his/her
alleged knowledge and inspection of the facts, what the rule was, there is no
way to evaluate the very serious charge made here, that the child was
punished without recourse to established rules because he "made the school
look bad to the authorities." Or the very serious earlier charge, to the
effect that the child was made a "scapegoat".
In short, either the school is not a Sudbury school, and therefore might
be a place where students can be punished without any form of due process, or
the school is a Sudbury school, and therefore the student was sentenced as
the result of a guilty plea or guilty finding to a specific charge made by
the JC (or the JSM, as the case may be) of a specific rule broken, and the
author should be able to cite the rule.
Daniel Greenberg, Sudbury Valley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:33 EST