Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I dont like homeschooling as an idea, loss socialization if you ask me

"Both mother and son told KRDO that Hunter isn't exactly an easy kid to have in class. He's been suspended before for "rough-housing" and for kissing the same first-grader on her cheek.
KRDO reports that the school district is sticking to its stance. The superintended told the station that Hunter's kiss fits the district's definition of sexual harassment. "

Damn that child for acting like a young boy.

Well, I wish there was less socializing.

Between church, volunteering, volleyball and all of her neighborhood friends, I burn half a tank of gas getting her to her various "social engagements" every week.

Oh, and her homeschool friends.

 Bromsy wrote:
"Both mother and son told KRDO that Hunter isn't exactly an easy kid to have in class. He's been suspended before for "rough-housing" and for kissing the same first-grader on her cheek.
KRDO reports that the school district is sticking to its stance. The superintended told the station that Hunter's kiss fits the district's definition of sexual harassment. "

Damn that child for acting like a young boy.

Let them sue that district then...

 Ouze wrote:
OK, that's a fair rap. Even if you're going to prevail in legislation you still want to avoid it.

Yeah, you can write a big policy on "no inappropriate sexual contact" and then fight lawsuit after lawsuit because one child wasn't punished and the other one was and now you are in court arguing over what kind of contact is sexual and what kind of contact is inappropriate because this one kid kissed a hand and wasn't punished but my child kissed her on the cheek and was punished even though in our culture kissing on the cheek isn't sexual is just how we say "hello" and you are just discriminating because of that...blah blah blah.

Or you can write a policy saying "kiss anything, get suspended" and nip a whole slew of lawsuits in the ass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I could waste my time and explain yet again why zero-tolerance policies are needed due to lawsuit happy parents who are upset that their child was punished while another child wasn't (snip)

See, I don't get this. Doesn't the doctrine of in loco parentis mean that the schools have wide latitude to use discretion, legally? Honest question. From my lay view it seems like they're a lazy way to avoid making complex decisions.

They do have latitude to decide who to punish for what. And when they punish one kid differently then the parents sue because you are picking on their child because their child really didn't do anything worse than the other child (according to the parents) and you are only punishing them because they are [race/gender/religion/income/don't like the color of their car].

The lawsuit might be bogus but it takes time and money to dismiss and you are dealing with news trucks in your parking lot because it's sweeps season.

So everybody that does something stupid gets punished the same regardless of severity just so that stupid parents can't say that you are playing favorites while they call [Al Sharpton/Tea Party/ACLU/the superintendents mothers cousins former roommate in college].

It's stupid but it's sue-proof.

But there is a fix... have the parents sign a waiver to not litigate if they send their child to that school. (excepting criminal convictions of course).

No parent in their right mind would sign a waiver like that, and you would be stupid if you did.

 d-usa wrote:

No parent in their right mind would sign a waiver like that, and you would be stupid if you did.

Why not?

I'd sign something stating that I'd be okay if the school still had corporal punishments. (speaking as a father of two ranbuncious squigs... erhm, boyz).

IF they were wrong, then they'll answer to me... or at least at the parking log.

I have not posted on dakka in some time but I do believe the off top forum has not changed its oft taken conservative leaning to all subjects far and wide.

Zero tolerance policies are good, the thing is there often implemented state wide, sure your upper class white public elementary school might not need those rules but the large 2,500 kid high school in the middle of a large city very much does need those rules.

This is once again another reason the federal government needs to step in and lay down the fething law with these things and create some standards nation wide rather than letting states mess things up.

To say nothing of the large amount of schools that go unfunded because we decided to have our freedumbs and leave schooling up to incompetent local goverments that take the liberty of cutting any thing and everything they can from education to make sure we can lower those taxes!


Much like the lack of a good socialized health care system like the rest of the western world, we also like any kind of good socialized education as well.

To quote Lewis Black "It is a privilege to pay taxes, all those roads you drive on, all the schools you send your kids to, and all the police departments you see are not funded by fairy dust and dreams. Life involves paying for things. The rich man who tax dodges is just a much a welfare queen as the black man who takes food stamps to help feed his kids"

/end rant

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

No parent in their right mind would sign a waiver like that, and you would be stupid if you did.

Why not?

I'd sign something stating that I'd be okay if the school still had corporal punishments. (speaking as a father of two ranbuncious squigs... erhm, boyz).

IF they were wrong, then they'll answer to me... or at least at the parking log.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090924231749.htm

And no, I've no interest in even trying to debate this with you.

Why do you think federal standards would be any better?

After all the Dept. of Education is the one that came out with the mere preponderence of the evidence standard for sexual harassment cases in college, which is what defense lawyers would consider pure unadulterated crazy talk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

No parent in their right mind would sign a waiver like that, and you would be stupid if you did.

Why not?

I'd sign something stating that I'd be okay if the school still had corporal punishments. (speaking as a father of two ranbuncious squigs... erhm, boyz).

IF they were wrong, then they'll answer to me... or at least at the parking log.

You just let the school off the hook for everything. Er, I''m not into releasing them from liability if their teachers decide to get all rapey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I could waste my time and explain yet again why zero-tolerance policies are needed due to lawsuit happy parents who are upset that their child was punished while another child wasn't (snip)

See, I don't get this. Doesn't the doctrine of in loco parentis mean that the schools have wide latitude to use discretion, legally? Honest question. From my lay view it seems like they're a lazy way to avoid making complex decisions.

They do have latitude to decide who to punish for what. And when they punish one kid differently then the parents sue because you are picking on their child because their child really didn't do anything worse than the other child (according to the parents) and you are only punishing them because they are [race/gender/religion/income/don't like the color of their car].

The lawsuit might be bogus but it takes time and money to dismiss and you are dealing with news trucks in your parking lot because it's sweeps season.

So everybody that does something stupid gets punished the same regardless of severity just so that stupid parents can't say that you are playing favorites while they call [Al Sharpton/Tea Party/ACLU/the superintendents mothers cousins former roommate in college].

It's stupid but it's sue-proof.

The problem is that the policy uses defacto criminal labelling for minor or nonexistent offenses. In some states the kid might have to be put on an offender regsirty now.

Its not SA. Its just unruly behavior. The suspension could be just fine. Its the defacto criminal charge that aint.

Sounds like this kid had touching and kissing issues and was most likely warned multiple times but now we are getting half information and/or exaggerated information specifically designed to rouse the public knowing they generally don't get past cursory information before letting righteous indignation and a sense of moral superiority take over.

I believe it would be better to have a system that operates the same on a basic level everywere and leave interpretation up to the states.


This would at least allow cases like this to be more cut and dry. And I do know the federal goverment doesn't get everything right, but the states get it wrong a lot more often.


Virginia is an excellent example of failure to set standards, with states in the poor southern parts literally getting no money and have 40% graduation rates to states in the rich north get lots of funding and have 90%+ graduation rates.

The federal government stepping would at least allow some sort of uniform funding given.

Ironically recently southern Virginia is up in arms over the predicated raise in taxes to fund education in the south under the new governor. But before they were up in arms about NOT getting funding.

So in instances like this we come around to more, "I want someone else to pay it so I don't have to" since the cost of education has to go somewere

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
OK, that's a fair rap. Even if you're going to prevail in legislation you still want to avoid it.

Yeah, you can write a big policy on "no inappropriate sexual contact" and then fight lawsuit after lawsuit because one child wasn't punished and the other one was and now you are in court arguing over what kind of contact is sexual and what kind of contact is inappropriate because this one kid kissed a hand and wasn't punished but my child kissed her on the cheek and was punished even though in our culture kissing on the cheek isn't sexual is just how we say "hello" and you are just discriminating because of that...blah blah blah.

Or you can fight lawsuit after lawsuit because you're applying criminal sexual offenses to non criminal and nonsexual violations. Its not that the policy is wrong. Its that the mindlessness of the charge is wrong aka we have wannabe prosecutors who are going full bore felony charges for misdemeanor offenses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Sounds like this kid had touching and kissing issues and was most likely warned multiple times but now we are getting half information and/or exaggerated information specifically designed to rouse the public knowing they generally don't get past cursory information before letting righteous indignation and a sense of moral superiority take over.

being suspended no big deal. Putting "sex offender" on your school record can have massive consequences later.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

No parent in their right mind would sign a waiver like that, and you would be stupid if you did.

Why not?

I'd sign something stating that I'd be okay if the school still had corporal punishments. (speaking as a father of two ranbuncious squigs... erhm, boyz).

IF they were wrong, then they'll answer to me... or at least at the parking log.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090924231749.htm

And no, I've no interest in even trying to debate this with you.

That's horse gak. really.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Sounds like this kid had touching and kissing issues and was most likely warned multiple times but now we are getting half information and/or exaggerated information specifically designed to rouse the public knowing they generally don't get past cursory information before letting righteous indignation and a sense of moral superiority take over.

being suspended no big deal. Putting "sex offender" on your school record can have massive consequences later.

He isn't on a Sex Offender registry, and the school records just list him as having been suspended. The school says the reason for the suspension is violation of the schools Sexual Harassment policy, which it seems like he did. Whether you are 6 or 40 if you keep picking on the same person over and over it is a problem, and one that needs to be dealt with. In this instance they used the tools available to them, which was the schools Sexual Harassment policy, to send a final message to stop messing with this girl.

 Ahtman wrote:
Sounds like this kid had touching and kissing issues and was most likely warned multiple times but now we are getting half information and/or exaggerated information specifically designed to rouse the public knowing they generally don't get past cursory information before letting righteous indignation and a sense of moral superiority take over.

But, now consider that suspension/expulsion from school for playing with air soft guns off school property or eating a pop tart into the vague shape of a gun is the norm. He was suspended for "rough-housing", whatever that means anymore. At this point, that could mean to me that they were playing tag on the playground and someone got touched a little too hard.

Now also consider that no one else anywhere has said that the poor little girl was a victim here, or that any of the touching was unwelcome.

I don't know. I'm assuming a lot too, but I keep hearing about the things kids are judged for anymore, and I think back to things kids did when I was young, and I think most of us would have spent a lot more time on vacation from school.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And not only does this seem a miscarriage of justice that will haunt the poor kid for the rest of his life, but it also mocks the black mark that "sexual harassment" is supposed to leave on a person.

When sexual harassment can mean anything from kissing a girl who may or may not like you when you're six, up to actual and genuine sexual harassment, how can you take it seriously anymore?

He isn't on a Sex Offender registry, and the school records just list him as having been suspended.

--Respectfully, was this in the article? If not you don't know that. Schools will keep a record of the reason for the suspension.

The school says the reason for the suspension is violation of the schools Sexual Harassment policy, which it seems like he did. Whether you are 6 or 40 if you keep picking on the same person over and over it is a problem, and one that needs to be dealt with. In this instance they used the tools available to them, which was the schools Sexual Harassment policy, to send a final message to stop messing with this girl.

You and I both know if his school record says "suspension" only its one thing, but if it says the charge, which it will to avoid said lawsuit, its an entirely different situation, and he will be treated differently.

I got into a fight when I was in the second grade, when I was younger I disliked that I didn't have a 'normal' sounding last name (ya know, like smith, miller, jones, etc...). So when kids would call me by my last name I would get angry because I had a first name and they should use it. So I got really angry one day after a few weeks of this going on, and I chased a couple of kids down, threw them into a fence, and told them to never call me by just my last name again. Unfortunately I only caught one of them because they were faster, and because a 4th grader knocked me out for a hot minute when he pushed me down onto the playground (the asphalt parking lot of my school). No one got in trouble for the fighting, the name calling, the pushing, shoving, etc... Had this happened today, we'd all be suspended for fighting...

daedalus wrote:I don't know.

Which gets back to my original point that I don't believe we have enough information on what really happened, and yet people are going off half cocked. As for the girl it states he had been in trouble for bothering the same girl before, so he had been warned about the behavior previously without being suspended.

Frazzled wrote:You and I both know if his school record says "suspension" only its one thing, but if it says the charge, which it will to avoid said lawsuit, its an entirely different situation, and he will be treated differently.

This isn't a criminal court, schools don't 'charge' people with anything, and he doesn't have to register as a Sex Offender, as he is not.

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

No parent in their right mind would sign a waiver like that, and you would be stupid if you did.

Why not?

I'd sign something stating that I'd be okay if the school still had corporal punishments. (speaking as a father of two ranbuncious squigs... erhm, boyz).

IF they were wrong, then they'll answer to me... or at least at the parking log.

You just let the school off the hook for everything. Er, I''m not into releasing them from liability if their teachers decide to get all rapey.

No... not everything. Essentially the school or teacher need to be convicted of something first to trigger the opportunity to sue. And be honest, there's already a gak ton of laws that they can get in trouble for... comprende?

But.. this is a moot point... it'll never happen.

 Ahtman wrote:

daedalus wrote:I don't know.

Which gets back to my original point that I don't believe we have enough information on what really happened, and yet people are going off half cocked. As for the girl it states he had been in trouble for bothering the same girl before, so he had been warned about the behavior previously without being suspended.

He was in trouble for kissing the same girl before. Verdict is still out on whether it was a bother.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Had this happened today, we'd all be suspended for fighting...

He had been cough before 'roughhousing' and bothering the same girl without being suspended. If you had been warned multiple times and kept getting into that fight even 'back then' you would probably get suspended as well.

I slammed a friends head into a wall for saying that i liked a girl in 3rd grade -- kids feth up, i don't think they need to be getting suspended before they learn the rules - and no not every kid learns the rules off their parents.

Frazzled mentioned not signing away ltiginous rights just encase the teachers got rapey. Coming from a comparitively non-litigious society I am always curious in "rapey" situations what suing them gets a victim, it certainly doesnt solve ongoing issues as a result of the assault, nor does it punish the offender (who I assume immediatley declares bankruptsy). Is suing a means to an end or something valuable?

I genuinely think that if everyone on this forum were forced to go through school again, all of us would be suspended at least once. Sexual harrassment for kissing a girl's hand, at the age of six? I thought you (apparently) didn't learn about that until you were about nine? (YMMV)

 Ahtman wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Had this happened today, we'd all be suspended for fighting...

He had been cough before 'roughhousing' and bothering the same girl without being suspended. If you had been warned multiple times and kept getting into that fight even 'back then' you would probably get suspended as well.

Except that the 4th grader that 'ended' the rough housing had already been suspended once or twice for rough housing, which is surprising considering I went to a catholic school when I was younger.

Also, the kid returned to school yesterday. So maybe we'll hear more about this story.

 daedalus wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

daedalus wrote:I don't know.

Which gets back to my original point that I don't believe we have enough information on what really happened, and yet people are going off half cocked. As for the girl it states he had been in trouble for bothering the same girl before, so he had been warned about the behavior previously without being suspended.

He was in trouble for kissing the same girl before. Verdict is still out on whether it was a bother.

Yep, as the article says it was the other snitches, i mean "children" who went to the teacher, not this boy or his young love companion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I genuinely think that if everyone on this forum were forced to go through school again, all of us would be suspended at least once. Sexual harrassment for kissing a girl's hand, at the age of six? I thought you (apparently) didn't learn about that until you were about nine? (YMMV)

Yeah, it didn't take long for things to shift. I was only 5 years older than my younger brother. And in that 5 years, he lost the ability to play Cops and Robbers (Fuzz and blaggers? in the UK?), the ability to use a "finger gun" in the pursuit of playing cops and robbers. He lost the ability to, with 2 willing participants have play sword fights with sticks found on the playground. He lost the ability to even move in class. I mean, hell I KNOW that I fidgeted a lot in class, but the teachers that I had never once suggested to my parents that I had ADHD. Good thing is, I have outstanding parents, and their response to, "I think your son has ADHD" was, "what makes you think that?" to which the teacher outlined all the fidgeting and "disruptive" behavior, etc. and my parents' response to that was, "well, for one he's a 6 year old boy, they do these things. Perhaps if you were a better teacher, you could gather, and maintain his attention better"

Turns out... he was a REALLY REALLY good drummer, and couldnt switch that off, and in fact was bored by the teachers in school (except for the music teachers)

There's surely more to this story, but it seems a little, well, insane, to use the term 'sexual harassment' when all that happened was some six year old kid kissed another six year old kid's hand. That's the sort of thing most people find cute and harmless, at least where I come from, worthy of a stereotypical aaaawww, rather than a suspension.

 Ahtman wrote:

daedalus wrote:I don't know.

Which gets back to my original point that I don't believe we have enough information on what really happened, and yet people are going off half cocked. As for the girl it states he had been in trouble for bothering the same girl before, so he had been warned about the behavior previously without being suspended.

Frazzled wrote:You and I both know if his school record says "suspension" only its one thing, but if it says the charge, which it will to avoid said lawsuit, its an entirely different situation, and he will be treated differently.

This isn't a criminal court, schools don't 'charge' people with anything, and he doesn't have to register as a Sex Offender, as he is not.

They will however, put the reason for a suspension.

So, Canon City (the place this happened) has updated the story a bit.

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/news/canoncity-local-news/ci_24697729/lincoln-school-science-technology-student-suspended-after-kissing

The child was suspended a month ago with an in-school suspension for kissing the girl on the cheek, and then was suspended with an out of school suspension for kissing her on the hand.

 iproxtaco wrote:
There's surely more to this story, but it seems a little, well, insane, to use the term 'sexual harassment' when all that happened was some six year old kid kissed another six year old kid's hand. That's the sort of thing most people find cute and harmless, at least where I come from, worthy of a stereotypical aaaawww, rather than a suspension.

IIRC, this took place in Colorado... They are strangely laid back about some things that shouldnt be, and extremely wound to tightly about other things that shouldnt be. This apparently is one of them.



Personally, I think that Zero Tolerance policies should follow a flow chart, or set of rules. As we've seen numerous times, kids are getting records for legitimately harmless things. I mean, if a kid brings a butter knife with his/her PB&J, send a written warning home, possibly have the teacher hold onto this "deadly weapon" until the end of the day, inform the parents and then move on. Same thing here. From what we have of the story so far, everyone except for the jealous kids/ idiotic teachers don't mind this particular boy and his girlfriend showing a bit of affection.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Had this happened today, we'd all be suspended for fighting...

He had been cough before 'roughhousing' and bothering the same girl without being suspended. If you had been warned multiple times and kept getting into that fight even 'back then' you would probably get suspended as well.

Sounds like a 6 year old boy. They are supposed to roughhouse and be inappropriate. Its their nature at that age. They are like puppies without the awesome sweet milk breath. Thats the problem. Schools have been taken over by some mantra that normal boy behaviors are DA EVILZZ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I genuinely think that if everyone on this forum were forced to go through school again, all of us would be suspended at least once. Sexual harrassment for kissing a girl's hand, at the age of six? I thought you (apparently) didn't learn about that until you were about nine? (YMMV)

I wish I was only suspended once. Frazzled did not do well in Rock and Pointy Stick School.