http://www.komonews.com/news/local/88971742.html (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/88971742.html)
QuoteSEATTLE -- The mother of a Ballard High School student is fuming after the health center on campus helped facilitate her daughter's abortion during school hours.
The mother, whom KOMO News has chosen to identify only as "Jill," says the clinic kept the information "confidential."
When she signed a consent form, Jill figured it meant her 15 year old could go to the Ballard Teen Health Center located inside the high school for an earache, a sports physical, even birth control, but not for help terminating a pregnancy.
"She took a pregnancy test at school at the teen health center," she said. "Nowhere in this paperwork does it mention abortion or facilitating abortion."
Jill says her daughter, a pro-life advocate, was given a pass, put in a taxi and sent off to have an abortion during school hours all without her family knowing.
"We had no idea this was being facilitated on campus," said Jill. "They just told her that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility." (emphasis mine)
The Seattle School District says it doesn't run the health clinics at high schools. Swedish Medical Center runs the clinic at Ballard High and protects the students' privacy.
T.J. Cosgrove of the King County Health Department, which administers the school-based programs for the health department, says it's always best if parents are involved in their children's health care, but don't always have a say.
"At any age in the state of Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of pregnancy," he said.
But Jill says she not only didn't have a say in her daughter's abortion, but also didn't know about it.
"Makes me feel like my rights were completely stripped away."
Ok... my take on this is rather scattered and mixed..
I do have issues with this... but... what if mom had said no? What if she'd said "you're going to have this kid whether you want to or not"? Who wins, a parent, or the girl who was old enough to make the call to get pregnant, and IMO, by definition, is old enough to make the call over what to do with it. ..AND is the one in the long run who will have to raise it to adult hood.. ( I know all about the argument of "she should have thought that out before having sex ..)
"Let me note here that this isn't about a liberal or conservative position. I just don't think schools should be providing counseling on these matters.. or the government paying for voluntary abortion. Still... it's pretty much the girl's choice in this matter...
BUT....................
The daughter is only 15 years old... so that makes the parents responsible for her. It is their job and their Right to be a part of her life and to make these decisions.
For those of us that have strong feelings about abortion... on either side of the debate...., this is a major issue. However, I guarantee that if I had a daughter..and this had happened .. the school would have found themselves in court for denying us our parental Rights! It is cases like this that either allow laws to stay on the books or to be corrected.
I don't care which side of the fence you sit on when it comes to abortion, we should all be concerned about the State facilitating the deception of parents and limiting their influence in their children's lives.
Legally speaking the school didn't do anything wrong. However, every single school employee that took part in this should be fired.
The state of Washington passed the law, don't know why, but there would be no grounds for a suit that would be winnable.The clinic wasn't run by the school.They just made space available. If the mother was so concerned, she should have gotten more information before she signed the consent form. There is a male involved there too. ..how about suing him and his family? That would sure attract attention! I'm sure neither of the kids ever considered parental rights or got permission to have sex, nor did they consider any of the consequences. Then at the next level, if she'd had the child there would have been a minor with parental rights over an even younger minor? Or do the grandparents have parental rights over the daughter and the grandchild since neither is of age. What about the other set of parents and grandparents? It's enough to make your head spin. Suppose the daughter wanted to have the child but her mother didn't want her to? With parental rights being considered, could she force her to have an abortion? Whew!!! Just lock 'em up until they are 30. Maybe they can sue the taxi driver? These things can really get complicated. Varmit, what would be the grounds for firing any school employee if everything was legal?
In my opinion, it a moral issue. They sent a 15 year old girl off to undergo a traumatic expirence, then told her to hide it from her parents.
Sue the school for allowing a non school clinic to operate inside the school, sue the clinic for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and for kidnapping the child. That form sure didn't authorize transportation to a abortion clinic so thats physically removing a minor child from their proper guardians care therefore kidnapping.
While i am opposed to abortions, this goes far beyond the abortion issue. It is stripping parents of their absolute right to raise and care of their child without any authorization to strip the parents of their rights.
Good Lord diane what has the boy got to do with it. Sheesh. He isn't even a part of it now since they aborted her child.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 26, 2010, 06:43:15 PM
These things can really get complicated. Varmit, what would be the grounds for firing any school employee if everything was legal?
Grounds would be allowing a 3rd party to remove the child from school grounds. I can guarantee that nothing a parent signs authorizes this move unless it is via a ambulance or going to a emergency room. And this was no emergency.
What does the boy have to do with it? Was this an Immaculate Conception?
I'll have to reread the article again, but I thought only the clinic employees had anything to do with this mess. My comments about the boy were because he apparently didn't tell anybody either. Did he not know he was part of a pregnancy? Without the pregnancy there would have been no abortion. Morally the whole thing stinks, but when someone wants to sue, it's all about the law. I don't know how long ago that law in Washington was passed, but surely there must have been a lot of information out about the details. I can't help thinking there is more to this than that short article stated. Is the taxi driver going to be charged with kidnapping? Did someone from the clinic go with her?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 26, 2010, 07:32:31 PM
I'll have to reread the article again, but I thought only the clinic employees had anything to do with this mess. My comments about the boy were because he apparently didn't tell anybody either. Did he not know he was part of a pregnancy? Without the pregnancy there would have been no abortion. Morally the whole thing stinks, but when someone wants to sue, it's all about the law. I don't know how long ago that law in Washington was passed, but surely there must have been a lot of information out about the details. I can't help thinking there is more to this than that short article stated. Is the taxi driver going to be charged with kidnapping? Did someone from the clinic go with her?
The taxi driver could be charged not with kidnapping but being an accessory unfortunately. I think though that any court would drop charges against him.
Quote from: Wilma on March 26, 2010, 07:21:14 PM
What does the boy have to do with it? Was this an Immaculate Conception?
The boy has nothing to do with any of this now. Why would he be sued. He's no longer responsible for the care of her or the child since the baby was killed.
You may see it that way, but if the girl's mother is going to sue, she may be advised to include the boy and/ or his family for with -holding information, even if the clinic kept it secret. Beats me, but the law and lawyers can complicate vanilla pudding if it's advantageous.
The child was old enough to be sexually active, they should be considered old enough to make their own decisions. In most states, the underage parent is considered legally emancipated once they give birth, why should that status not extend from the point of pregnancy. Further to the above, it is not the parents' body, it is the girl's and she should make her decision and have a right to privacy.
Jerry,
Do you really beleive what you just said or are you just trying to fan the flames ? I guess an 8 year old girl is old enough to be sexually active so she should have a right to privacy ?????? How about a 6 year old if they are "6 going on 16 " ??? Give me a break.
Quote from: jerry wagner on March 26, 2010, 07:50:24 PM
The child was old enough to be sexually active, they should be considered old enough to make their own decisions. In most states, the underage parent is considered legally emancipated once they give birth, why should that status not extend from the point of pregnancy. Further to the above, it is not the parents' body, it is the girl's and she should make her decision and have a right to privacy.
You seem to forget, that minors do not have a right to privacy. That only comes with adulthood which is 18.
Quote from: jarhead on March 26, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
Jerry,
Do you really beleive what you just said or are you just trying to fan the flames ? I guess an 8 year old girl is old enough to be sexually active so she should have a right to privacy ?????? How about a 6 year old if they are "6 going on 16 " ??? Give me a break.
Yeah me thinks he's fanning flames. I wanna see his face when his kids come ot him and tell him they have a right to privacy.
Quote from: jarhead on March 26, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
Jerry,
Do you really beleive what you just said or are you just trying to fan the flames ? I guess an 8 year old girl is old enough to be sexually active so she should have a right to privacy ?????? How about a 6 year old if they are "6 going on 16 " ??? Give me a break.
So you are saying the eight year that is pregnant should have no say in the decision? And I'm sorry but generally a six year is unable to become pregnant as her sexual organs have not developed sufficiently.... so who is trying to fan the flames.
Quote from: srkruzich on March 26, 2010, 08:30:47 PM
You seem to forget, that minors do not have a right to privacy. That only comes with adulthood which is 18.
No I have not forgotten... but if bothered to read my post, I had stated that a minor that gives birth in most states is considered emancipated and thus gains the rights of an adult in re: decision making and privacy so why should that right only extend at child birth was my question.
Quote from: jerry wagner on March 26, 2010, 08:37:41 PM
So you are saying the eight year that is pregnant should have no say in the decision?
Why would a 8, 10, 12 year old have any say in it. THey are minors under their parents authority. THey are not granted that privelege and right until they are of age.
QuoteNo I have not forgotten... but if bothered to read my post, I had stated that a minor that gives birth in most states is considered emancipated and thus gains the rights of an adult in re: decision making and privacy so why should that right only extend at child birth was my question.
That isn't exactly true. They only have rights extending to their baby. Thats it, they are NOT emancipated nor gain all rights and responsibilities of adults including privacy. The law still says the parents have to take care of her, and if thats the case then she is under their authority and rules. In OTHER words, if you live in my house, you follow my rules.
Jerry, a 5 year old Peruvian girl gave birth to a baby. I didn't say you were fanning the flames . I asked if you were trying too but I think you've answered my question.
Quote from: jerry wagner on March 26, 2010, 07:50:24 PM
The child was old enough to be sexually active, they should be considered old enough to make their own decisions.
Ok, thats a little twisted...How would you define old enough to be sexually active?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 26, 2010, 07:45:10 PM
You may see it that way, but if the girl's mother is going to sue, she may be advised to include the boy and/ or his family for with -holding information, even if the clinic kept it secret. Beats me, but the law and lawyers can complicate vanilla pudding if it's advantageous.
So should the boy and his family be able to sue the girl and her family if she didn't tell him?
Few thoughts.......
school was wrong...period. Never should have happened that way
Parents evidently didn't have a good enough relationship with the daughter that she trusted them enough to tell them and discuss options with THEM. So they were wrong also.
Far as abortion that's a cross every individual has to choose whether or not to burden themselves with. I choose not to and would counsel my daughter that way too but would still listen to her and understand if she did, but then again I gave her information and plain talk about consequences of actions instead of ignoring the fact she was growin up so I haven't HAD that problem.
That law is wrong and should be repealed. I understand some parents are not able or willing to listen to their kids or help them when they fall or jump off the pedestal but that fact does not make it right, it just makes it hard for the children of THOSE parents and that is an awful thing.
Jerry you are wrong on this one.
Varmit, I know what you mean and it's possible. Do we know if the father is indeed a "boy,'' not an over friendly uncle or someone for whom statutory rape could be an issue? I really don't know. It's a very complicated.I expect the courts will settle it depending on the details of their law.
Since there is no mention of a father, either the baby's father or the girl's father, in this, we can assume that father's are not important. If the father is not important, maybe the mother isn't important, either. Obviously the clinic is operating within the law of that state. The girl is pro-life, but chose to have an abortion. There has to be some reason that she did not want to carry the baby, other than just not wanting to become a mother. Perhaps the fact of who the father of the baby was would be too painful for the girl, her mother and a bunch of other relatives, so the girl chose to terminate. And for the same reason, chose to keep it a secret from her mother and the rest of the world. Maybe the girl is the most mature one of the lot.
I see no reason to get vitriolic about this. The law of that state gave the girl the right to decide to have an abortion and to keep it from her family. Why does anyone else have a right to say anything about it? including the person who wrote the article.
Quote from: Wilma on March 27, 2010, 10:05:59 AM
Since there is no mention of a father, either the baby's father or the girl's father, in this, we can assume that father's are not important.
Wilma obviously the father isn't important. Hasn't been in almost 40 years. IF the father had any say in anything then fathers would have a say in whether or not to abort a baby. I know when my ex found out my youngest was conceivd i ended up spending a whole lot of money preventing her from getting a abortion in order to save his life. Took a lot of abuse, and fought like hell to get him home with his brothers and I when he was born. Took me 2 years after he was born before i could get him home.
IF Fathers were important, then it would have been a no brainer at his birth, i could have just picked him up and took him home.
Quote
I see no reason to get vitriolic about this. The law of that state gave the girl the right to decide to have an abortion and to keep it from her family. Why does anyone else have a right to say anything about it? including the person who wrote the article.
Because minors are incapable of making a rash and informed decision, as well as parents have the final say in ANY medical treatment of their child. I would have had the principle, the teacher, councellor invloved as well as the clinic involved and their employes arrested immediately for kidnapping, assault, and any other charge that i could think of if that would have happened to my child. You don't have to have a court to lock them up, just file the papers and have the sherriff serve them. Secondly theres civil suits here that this "law" doesn't protect anyone from. You don't need a jury of 12 to convict in a civil suit, and i'm quite sure that if the parents were to charge everyone involved, that there would be a conviction in all parties.
And you would have been violating the laws of that state.
Quote from: Wilma on March 27, 2010, 11:31:44 AM
And you would have been violating the laws of that state.
Well you know what? Money talks the BS walks. Thats life.
And if i had the same circumstances, i would sell everything i had and borrow all that i could and do it again.
There are some things in this life that are worth risking it all even dying for! And my son was one. :) Best money i ever spent in my life!
It will never make sense to me that I have to have a parent's consent to adjust the kids back until they are 18 years old, but some stranger at their school can arrange an abortion for them without their parents being told. I don't have any children, but I am willing to bet that if I did and someone took the initiative to abort my underage child or grandchild's baby...........well I can't imagine the emotions that I would feel toward them. Law or no law. I remember marching for women's rights in Little Rock in the 70's. I certainly didn't forsee this.
Steve, I'm so sorry you had to deal with all that, but it doesn't change the fact that this is different situation in a different state with different laws. I have a good male friend who has an 11 year old son who he has raised since birth, not quite the same as you because they weren't married and were a little older (one night stand) but the girl wasn't ready to be a mother, period. Her family said they would support her decision regardless. After many tears and "what if's" she agreed to have the baby because Howard wanted it so much and he has made good on his word. With a little help from his own family and lots of friends he has been a wonderful single father, finished his education, and went to law school. Two years ago he found a lovely young lady who adored Howard and his son.They have since married and just recently had a child. I wish these things could all work out that well but they don't.That's why we have to have laws, and every case, within the law, has to be judged on its own merits.
R J. I agree, who would ever have seen this kind of thing coming?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 27, 2010, 04:20:17 PM
Steve, I'm so sorry you had to deal with all that, but it doesn't change the fact that this is different situation in a different state with different laws. I have a good male friend who has an 11 year old son who he has raised since birth, not quite the same as you because they weren't married and were a little older (one night stand) but the girl wasn't ready to be a mother, period. Her family said they would support her decision regardless. After many tears and "what if's" she agreed to have the baby because Howard wanted it so much and he has made good on his word. With a little help from his own family and lots of friends he has been a wonderful single father, finished his education, and went to law school. Two years ago he found a lovely young lady who adored Howard and his son.They have since married and just recently had a child. I wish these things could all work out that well but they don't.That's why we have to have laws, and every case, within the law, has to be judged on its own merits.
R J. I agree, who would ever have seen this kind of thing coming?
First of all Diane, This isn't a law its a travesty of justice. THey have usurped parental rights, destroyed a life, as well as damaged another young life through this. This country IMO has become a 3rd world nation when it concerns the value of life.
i said that the Fathers aren't important in this day and age as their considered as sperm donors. I have heard that term on here as well as many other places, and thats the general concensus about men in general. Not needed except for making a baby and money. And those laws are one sided laws, and laws like this one are unjust, unlawful, and should not be obeyed no matter what.
Who is "they," the state of Washington? You'd have to ask them why they passed such a law. I'm sure they aren't all radical females out there. I suspect we could all come up with cases to support how we feel. Fathers who have multiple children with their own daughters and keep them locked up for years? How about those as parental rights? That's terrible. That's why I keep harping on people not falling into the trap of over generalizing things. Not "all" of anybody does these things, thank goodness. The only way to stop all these twists and turns is to chemically sterilize the boys and put chastity belts on the girls until they are as old as the parents think they should be to be allowed the freedom to be sexually active. That is if the parents or parent or guardians have any sense...not all do.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 27, 2010, 05:42:59 PM
Who is "they," the state of Washington? You'd have to ask them why they passed such a law. I'm sure they aren't all radical females out there. I suspect we could all come up with cases to support how we feel. Fathers who have multiple children with their own daughters and keep them locked up for years? How about those as parental rights? That's terrible. That's why I keep harping on people not falling into the trap of over generalizing things. Not "all" of anybody does these things, thank goodness. The only way to stop all these twists and turns is to chemically sterilize the boys and put chastity belts on the girls until they are as old as the parents think they should be to be allowed the freedom to be sexually active. That is if the parents or parent or guardians have any sense...not all do.
Not really, starts with teaching kids what is right and wrong from the cradle. And yes there are a few twisted people out there that slip past the cracks but it is only a few and they do get caught. But this law doesn't have anything to do with those individuals. IT has everything to do with usurping parental rights.
You know it's interesting how others view things. On another forum I commonly visit, with a LOT of Repubs. I might add, they were all about what was wrong at home that kept the girl from 'fessing up to her parents, or the girl just not wanting to get in trouble at home, so she took the easy way out. Also they wondered if the baby's father, (who might also be young, I haven't heard) may have encouraged her to have the abortion, or perhaps knew nothing about it at all. None blamed the school for allowing the clinic to be in the school and nobody wanted anybody arrested, because they had broken no law.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 28, 2010, 06:30:56 PM
You know it's interesting how others view things. On another forum I commonly visit, with a LOT of Repubs. I might add, they were all about what was wrong at home that kept the girl from 'fessing up to her parents, or the girl just not wanting to get in trouble at home, so she took the easy way out. Also they wondered if the baby's father, (who might also be young, I haven't heard) may have encouraged her to have the abortion, or perhaps knew nothing about it at all. None blamed the school for allowing the clinic to be in the school and nobody wanted anybody arrested, because they had broken no law.
I'm not a republican. But i am Conservative. The two are not alike. I am libertarian/constitutionalist. Again Constitution limits the power of government. And when it concerns parental rights, that is NOT a state right, nor a federal right. It is a right that is left to the parents/people. It specifically states this in the 10th amendment. Secondly, our schools are for learning. They are not medical institutions where they can preform or prescribe abortions for our young girls. THey are out of line. Yes the school is at fault. They allowed a 3rd party to host a clinic in the school without controls. Then you have a clinic that overstepped their bounds by prescribing an abortion, and then transporting the girl to a facility that preformed the abortion. YOu have 4 institutions that opened themselves up to lawsuits, 4 institutions that usurped parental control and parental rights, as well as 4 institutions that overstepped their constitutional authority.
This is what many of us on here have been talking about in our Government school threads. The Government schools have decided they are the authority and it is time to slap them back into their proper places.
I wasn't suggesting that you are Republican or anything else, just that the other forum does have a lot of Repubs. Usually it is the Democrats who are accused of being so liberal in their thinking. I'm sure the state of Washington could care less about our input ,but it should be interesting to see how this plays out. Very little has been said beyond that little initial article and interview with the mother.
Heres another GOVERNMENT School overstepping their authority......
http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf
Srkruzich, I have seen other reports like this before. Frankly, anyone in the school adminstration that has seen the images should be arrested and jailed for child pornography. Other articles I've read stated that the "improper behavior" the boy was engaged in was the same behavior that 99.9% of teenage boys (and most grown men) engage in. The fact that the school adminstration not only viewed the boy while he was "engaged" but suspended him for it is just sick!
I found this outrageous as well. You know when you are peeking around in other people's lives without their permission you should just shut up about what you see. It wasn't yours to see. I agree Varmit.....lets do some investigating about the computer habits of the people in charge, who set this up and seem to have the time and interest to be looking into a young boy's room.
I think that one really got out of hand. The schools provided the computers, so they were school property. Supposedly the camera would only be activated to help find missing and stolen computers. Obviously his wasn't missing, so there was no need to look for it ,unless he stole it and I'm sure that wasn't the case. Unless the parents signed a contract allowing the school to activate that camera for some reason other than theft, the school was wrong. I can't help thinking there must be more to this. The middle school teachers I know are very much aware of the kids new and growing sexuality at that age and wouldn't be remotely surprised. Now the two 8th graders who got caught in the teachers' rest room at Stanton middle...whole different animal.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 02, 2010, 02:47:31 PM
I think that one really got out of hand. The schools provided the computers, so they were school property. Supposedly the camera would only be activated to help find missing and stolen computers. Obviously his wasn't missing, so there was no need to look for it ,unless he stole it and I'm sure that wasn't the case. Unless the parents signed a contract allowing the school to activate that camera for some reason other than theft, the school was wrong. I can't help thinking there must be more to this. The middle school teachers I know are very much aware of the kids new and growing sexuality at that age and wouldn't be remotely surprised. Now the two 8th graders who got caught in the teachers' rest room at Stanton middle...whole different animal.
Its not a isolated case. This is just one that got caught. This is a growing problem in our schools that go to laptops for kids programs. They think they can monitor behavior 24 x 7 and thats not their job. Its pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. The school officials very well were spying on students. Secondly the school does NOT need a camera to locate a stolen laptop either. It is extreamly simple to locate one. Each computer processor has a serial number that transmits its number id all the time. If its connected to the net, it can be sniffed out very easily. ALl one has to do is send out a identification request globally and when it hits that laptop it will respond back through the ip address its connected to. Once received you get ip addy,serial number, and all it takes is a quicky call to the isp and you got their number.
Turning on the cams is so they can see what is happening inside of that home. One more step into invading the privacy of the home. Saw this coming years ago when they instituted DARE programs in the schools.
OMG...Seriously? You're equating the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, specifically and only instituted to combat the spread of the drug culture among our youth, with invasion of privacy? What are you doing in your home that would fly in the face of that particular education? Forget it...Not interested. Stupidity isn't a virus but it sure spreads like one. Educate yourself before you try spouting any more wisdom on this subject.
Quote from: Catwoman on April 02, 2010, 06:14:31 PM
OMG...Seriously? You're equating the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, specifically and only instituted to combat the spread of the drug culture among our youth, with invasion of privacy? What are you doing in your home that would fly in the face of that particular education? Forget it...Not interested. Stupidity isn't a virus but it sure spreads like one. Educate yourself before you try spouting any more wisdom on this subject.
Absolutely. DARE is nothing more than a means to gain intel on what goes on in your house. They teach kids to tell their teachers if thier parents smoke pot or drink excessively and if you have guns in your home. And with that intel police can enter a home without a warrant via probable cause. DARE also does nothing but teach kids what drugs are out there, and where the most likely place they are sold.
You might want to educate yourself on the DARE program.
Steve, my wife I were both involved in D.A.R.E. and PDAP when our kids were in school and I never once seen anyone try to get kids to tell anything about what their parents were doing. You must have gotten involved in a bad program. We desperatly need these programs and they do lots of good. It is disturbing to see someone make statements like you did and it is damaging to the programs.
The Use of Children as Informants
"Children are asked to submit to D.A.R.E. police officers sensitive written questionnaires that can easily refer to the kids' homes" and that "a D.A.R.E. lesson called 'The Three R's: Recognize, Resist, Report' ... encourages children to tell friends, teachers or police if they find drugs at home."[30]
In addition, "D.A.R.E. officers are encouraged to put a 'D.A.R.E. Box' in every classroom, into which students may drop 'drug information' or questions under the pretense of anonymity. Officers are instructed that if a student 'makes a disclosure related to drug use,' the officer should report the information to further authorities, both school and police. This apparently applies whether the 'drug use' was legal or illegal, harmless or harmful. In a number of communities around the country, students have been enlisted by the D.A.R.E. officer as informants against their parents."[31]
"In the official D.A.R.E. Implementation Guide, police officers are advised to be alert for signs of children who have relatives who use drugs. D.A.R.E. officers are first and foremost police officers and thus are duty-bound to follow up leads that might come to their attention through inadvertent or indiscreet comments by young children."[32]
As a result, "children sometimes confide the names of people they suspect are illegally using drugs. A mother and father in Caroline County, Maryland, were jailed for 30 days after their daughter informed a police D.A.R.E. instructor that her parents had marijuana plants in their home, according to a story in The Washington Post in January 1993. The Wall Street Journal reported in 1992 that 'In two recent cases in Boston, children who had tipped police stepped out of their homes carrying D.A.R.E. diplomas as police arrived to arrest their parents.' In 1991, 10-year-old Joaquin Herrera of Englewood, Colorado, phoned 911, announced, 'I'm a D.A.R.E. kid' and summoned police to his house to discover a couple of ounces of marijuana hidden in a bookshelf, according to the Rocky Mountain News. The boy sat outside his parents' home in a police patrol car while the police searched the home and arrested the parents. The policeman assigned to the boy's school commended the boy's action."[33]
Efficiency
DARE is constantly reevaluating its efficiency and altering its strategies. Since the 1990s, independent studies of the D.A.R.E program have been conducted from selected school populations. These studies reported that D.A.R.E. did not actually decrease drug use among graduates. Some studies even indicated that there was an increased rate of drug use among D.A.R.E. graduates. In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States placed the D.A.R.E. program in the category of "Does Not Work"[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Efficiency
Bottom line on DARE program is its a utter failure and the only reason its still going is for intel into private lives and homes.
Quote from: frawin on April 02, 2010, 08:40:48 PM
Steve, my wife I were both involved in D.A.R.E. and PDAP when our kids were in school and I never once seen anyone try to get kids to tell anything about what their parents were doing. You must have gotten involved in a bad program. We desperatly need these programs and they do lots of good. It is disturbing to see someone make statements like you did and it is damaging to the programs.
It is a total invasion of privacy. The surgeon general of the United STates has deemed it a failure. Look it up. I didn't make any of this up.
I was once very much involved in the D.A.R.E. program...And your opinion would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetically misguided. You would be well advised to get in touch with someone who adminstrates the program and get some information on the program, its guidelines and expected outcomes. At the very least...Spare yourself the embarrassment of repeating this diatribe in front of anyone else publically. What you have posted here are incidents that, while they might have happened in that isolated instance, are not the standard for the rest of the country. It would be like my stating that because you are posting on here, you would be the standard by which I should judge Elk County and all its inhabitants...Which wouldn't be fair to the rest of the fairly forward thinking population who lives there.
Catwoman, thank you for understanding and stating that most of Elk County isn't so misguided in their thinking.
Quote from: Catwoman on April 02, 2010, 08:51:50 PM
I was once very much involved in the D.A.R.E. program...And your opinion would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetically misguided. You would be well advised to get in touch with someone who adminstrates the program and get some information on the program, its guidelines and expected outcomes. At the very least...Spare yourself the embarrassment of repeating this diatribe in front of anyone else publically. What you have posted here are incidents that, while they might have happened in that isolated instance, are not the standard for the rest of the country. It would be like my stating that because you are posting on here, you would be the standard by which I should judge Elk County and all its inhabitants...Which wouldn't be fair to the rest of the fairly forward thinking population who lives there.
This is for you to read, not that i think you will. But you need proof, so here it is.
Dare Does not work (Surgeon General Report)
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter5/sec4.html
One school-based universal prevention program meets the criteria for Does Not Work: Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or DARE. DARE is the most widely implemented youth drug prevention program in the United States. It receives substantial support from parents, teachers, police, and government funding agencies, and its popularity persists despite numerous well-designed evaluations and meta-analyses that consistently show little or no deterrent effects on substance use. Overall, evidence on the effects of the traditional DARE curriculum, which is implemented in grades 5 and 6, shows that children who participate are as likely to use drugs as those who do not participate. However, some positive effects have been demonstrated regarding attitudes toward police.
1992 - Indiana University
Researchers at Indiana University, commissioned by Indiana school officials in 1992, found that those who completed the D.A.R.E. program subsequently had significantly higher rates of hallucinogenic drug use than those not exposed to the program.[10]
[edit] 1994 - National Institute of Justice
Other researchers found D.A.R.E. to be counterproductive in 1994.[11] In 1994, the National Institute of Justice published a summary[12] of a study conducted by the Research Triangle Institute.[13] The study suggested that D.A.R.E. would benefit from a revised curriculum. This was launched in the fall of 1994.
After the 1994 Research Triangle Institute study,[12][13] an article in the New Times Los Angeles stated that the "organization spent $41,000 to try to prevent widespread distribution of the RTI report and started legal action aimed at squelching the study."[14] The director of publication of the American Journal of Public Health told USA Today that "D.A.R.E. has tried to interfere with the publication of this. They tried to intimidate us."[15] After reporter Dennis Cauchon published a story questioning the effectiveness of D.A.R.E. in USA Today, he received letters from classrooms around the country, all addressed to "Dear D.A.R.E.-basher," and all using nearly identical language.[15]
[edit] 1995 - California Department of Education
In 1995, a report to the California Department of Education by Joel Brown Ph. D. stated that none of California's drug education programs worked, including D.A.R.E. "California's drug education programs, D.A.R.E. being the largest of them, simply don't work. More than 40 percent of the students told researchers they were 'not at all' influenced by drug educators or programs. Nearly 70 percent reported neutral to negative feelings about those delivering the antidrug (sic) message. While only 10 percent of elementary students responded to drug education negatively or indifferently, this figure grew to 33 percent of middle school students and topped 90 percent at the high school level." [16]
[edit] 1998 - National Institute of Justice
In 1998, A grant from the National Institute of Justice to the University of Maryland resulted in a report to the NIJ, which among other statements, concluded that "D.A.R.E. does not work to reduce substance use."[17] D.A.R.E. expanded and modified the social competency development area of its curriculum in response to the report. Research by Dr. Dennis Rosenbaum in 1998,[18] found that D.A.R.E. graduates were more likely than others to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco and use illegal drugs. Psychologist Dr. William Colson asserted in 1998 that D.A.R.E. increased drug awareness so that "as they get a little older, they (students) become very curious about these drugs they've learned about from police officers."[19] The scientific research evidence in 1998 indicated that the officers were unsuccessful in preventing the increased awareness and curiosity from being translated into illegal use. The evidence suggested that, by exposing young impressionable children to drugs, the program was, in fact, encouraging and nurturing drug use.[20] Studies funded by the National Institute of Justice in 1998,[17][21] and the California Legislative Analyst's Office in 2000[22] also concluded that the program was ineffective.
If nothing illegal is going on in the home then it really shouldn't be a problem.
Yes, I have read this particular bit of "information" before. I'm no more impressed with it now than I was then. Have been around this block more than once, I don't have a tendency to take what is written and take it as being gospel, chapter and verse for all of the rest of God's creations. I have seen this program do a great amount of good...I have seen children become adept at being able to say no to peer pressure in the area of offered drugs. I have seen the self confidence this program can inspire. So...As soon as you can come up with something better, I'm sure that all of the schools will jump at the chance to adopt it... ;D.
Quote from: greatguns on April 02, 2010, 09:09:19 PM
If nothing illegal is going on in the home then it really shouldn't be a problem.
Its none of anyones business what goes on in a persons home.
Well catwoman if it works so well why are states cutting the program out?
If you've had access to either a newspaper, a TV or a computer, then you must be aware of the ever-present problem of budget cuts that have been plaguing our city police and county sheriff's departments for years? Every time there's a hiccup in the economy, the first things to go are childrens' programs...SROs in schools...Etc. Unless you've been under a rock or playing Rip Van Winkle, then the last 20+ years have had to have made an impression in that area.
Quote from: Catwoman on April 02, 2010, 09:27:43 PM
If you've had access to either a newspaper, a TV or a computer, then you must be aware of the ever-present problem of budget cuts that have been plaguing our city police and county sheriff's departments for years? Every time there's a hiccup in the economy, the first things to go are childrens' programs...SROs in schools...Etc. Unless you've been under a rock or playing Rip Van Winkle, then the last 20+ years have had to have made an impression in that area.
Well the simple fact is i have produced more than enough evidence supporting its a failure but you have yet to produce 1 just one study that shows its a success.
The biggest Objection i have to it is that it is run by the law enforcement. THey are neither trained nor can the be impartial. Thats a dangerous combination.
::)
srkruzich, we all know that you are anti-everything. Do you have to keep reminding us? It is opinions like yours that are getting people investigated. Now I suppose you will claim that what you post on a forum is nobody's business but yours. By the way, what are you hiding that you don't want anyone to know about?
Quote from: Wilma on April 03, 2010, 07:13:24 AM
srkruzich, we all know that you are anti-everything.
Not at all. I am pro-life, For a Godly nation, Constitutionalist, I am absolutely for anything that is not evil. I am for responsible spending instead of throwing money away like this ungodly war on drugs. I am for taking care of ones family, not shoving it off on the taxpayer. I have many other things that i am not anti over. And I am for the 1st amendment and the freedom of speech of which i will use freely and if you don't like it, you know you can go elsewhere. SHrug your choice.
QuoteDo you have to keep reminding us?
YES I do.
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.) as quoted in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, NY, 1953, p167 and also in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, Boston, 1968, p479
QuoteIt is opinions like yours that are getting people investigated.
So what are we to do, just lay down and give up on our freedom? I'd rather be dead!
QuoteNow I suppose you will claim that what you post on a forum is nobody's business but yours.
Not at all, its public. What i post is what i will say to anyones face. I am no keyboard commando. I don't care if the truth hurts.
QuoteBy the way, what are you hiding that you don't want anyone to know about?
That darlin is NONE of your Business.
Wilma, maybe he's hiding the meth lab in the goat pen or the bomb factory in the shed out back...I guess you don't have a basement do you? ;D ;D Steve, up to a point I don't care squat what people do at home, but the law is there for a reason. For example,i f your house is on fire, firefighters need to know what they might stumble into that might hurt them, including gunpowder, shells, reloading supplies, O2 tanks, Meth labs, poisonous "pet"snakes, gasoline cans and things that are quite legal that might cause harm if we don't know its there. Most people, if they are at home, will be happy to tell us what's in the house and where. I've heard rounds cook off myself, and spray cans popping etc. You really aren't a hermit are you?
Diane, I am thinking that he is just hiding from progress and is mad because he can't do anything about it.
srkruzich, you say that people should take care of their own? That would be nice if everyone had someone.
Parents should teach their children. When? While they are sleeping off their latest binge or while they are still in la-la land with their favorite drug? Or while they are working 2 jobs because that is the only way they can manage without help from taxpayers?
Law Enforcement is too nosy. Sure they are and thank goodness for that. That is how they anticipate trouble and take care of it before it inconveniences anyone. Isn't it better to be prepared?
And just why do you feel that you have to keep reminding us? Are we so simple minded that we forget all the evils in your world and you are trying to protect us?
I am so glad that my glass if half full.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 03, 2010, 09:23:55 AM
Wilma, maybe he's hiding the meth lab in the goat pen or the bomb factory in the shed out back...I guess you don't have a basement do you? ;D ;D Steve, up to a point I don't care squat what people do at home, but the law is there for a reason.
Which law?
QuoteFor example,i f your house is on fire, firefighters need to know what they might stumble into that might hurt them, including gunpowder, shells, reloading supplies, O2 tanks, Meth labs, poisonous "pet"snakes, gasoline cans and things that are quite legal that might cause harm if we don't know its there. Most people, if they are at home, will be happy to tell us what's in the house and where. I've heard rounds cook off myself, and spray cans popping etc. You really aren't a hermit are you?
Well that is part of the risk of the job isn't it. But we are not talking about you or a firefighter standing on my front lawn, while the house is burning either. If the house caught fire, most likely no one will be going in it, if i don't get out in the first 3 -5 min, I'm dead anyway, and this house won't stand for more than 15 min if it gets going. All wood and dry as a bone.
And if there is a fire, they won't have to worry about things like that. :) I don't use spray cans. :D
Quote from: Wilma on April 03, 2010, 11:47:17 AM
Diane, I am thinking that he is just hiding from progress and is mad because he can't do anything about it.
What progress? This country hasn't progressed, its degenerated into a absolute mess.
Quotesrkruzich, you say that people should take care of their own? That would be nice if everyone had someone.
Generally i have found that most people that don't have someone created the situation.
QuoteParents should teach their children. When?
From day one when the child is born.
QuoteWhile they are sleeping off their latest binge or while they are still in la-la land with their favorite drug? Or while they are working 2 jobs because that is the only way they can manage without help from taxpayers?
Get off the booze, get off the drugs, to begin with, and don't sing that 2 job song because i have been there did that got the shirt to prove it and i have raised fine kids into fine young men. IF i can do it anyone can. Its called responsibility, sacrifice, and love for your children. IF you dont' love your children, give them to someone who will.
QuoteLaw Enforcement is too nosy.
Law enforcement doesn't have the authority to be nosey. First of all, they have no right to coerce children into giving them information.
QuoteAnd just why do you feel that you have to keep reminding us?
Of What?
QuoteAre we so simple minded that we forget all the evils in your world and you are trying to protect us?
No, i think people are just too scared to stand up and take on their responsibility for their own security. They want someone else to do it for them. Again...
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Talking about your schools, here is one that caught my eye. You gotta read this....
First grade parents shocked by teacher's assistant caught on tape
By Rebecca Powers
http://www.wlox.com/global/story.asp?s=11726282
BILOXI, MS (WLOX) - Rebecca and Mark Stabler say their 8-year-old son Gabe has come home from Jeff Davis Elementary in tears every day since school began in August.
So, they put a tape recorder in his book bag to hear what goes on in his first grade class.
The parents said that was on December 10th. When the recording was brought home that night, the Stablers were shocked to hear how assistant teacher Mershelia Williams spoke to the small children. They say her tone and grammar were deplorable.
"She's messed with the wrong kid, I'm sorry, cause I'm not going lay down," Rebecca Stabler said. "I'm not going stand idly by and let my child be treated like this, it's not going to happen."
Ms. Williams: "Where this go?"
Child: "I colored that yesterday."
Ms. Williams: "It shouldn't of got changed at all, that ain't nothing to be proud of."
A few seconds later, a child the Stablers identified as Makayla Massey could be heard asking for help on an assignment.
Makayla: "Ms. Williams, I don't know how to do this."
Ms. Williams: "Go sit down, I'm working right now, you're not gonna be walking up to me every 5 minutes asking me, telling me you don't know how to do something."
In front of her, to the class, Ms Williams is overheard taking to another child about Maykala.
Ms. Williams:"No, do your work. She ain't goin to be sittin up in here wanting somebody to help her every time she, cause she don't wanna apply herself to her work. You know how to go in that cafeteria and enjoy that lunch and breakfast every morning."
Maykala's mother, Jennifer Hammack, told WLOX News she is, "Very upset that my child had to be bullied by an adult who is suppose to be teaching her. Yes, my daughter has a weight problem, one that she is already very self conscious of."
On the tape hidden in Gabe's book bag, with 15 first graders in one room, they are surprisingly quiet enough for you to hear Ms. Williams speaking. The Stablers say it's because they are terrified instead of nurtured.
Rebecca Stabler said, "I will do whatever needs to be done to get this woman to not have a job here. This is ridiculous. You don't treat kids like this."
And all of this is in the first 28 and a half minutes of school. As the Stablers continued listening to the tape, they recognized the voice of their son Gabe, who is hard of hearing. He was asking for instructions on a work sheet.
Gabe: "I don't know what to do on this."
Ms. Williams: "Well, you'd better find out. It's not hard. Nobody else didn't have to ask no questions bout it. You know what to do, you just want somebody to just sit there and pet you about it, but I ain't gonna do it. You know how to go in that lunch room and tear that food up every day. Ain't nothing hard bout that sheet."
A holiday and dates worksheet seemed to have many of the first graders stumped.
This is what the teaching assistant is heard saying to two children who didn't understand.
Ms. Williams: "You gotta put all these dates on here on that side. The dates don't go over here, this is holidays. And this is dates! Holidays! Dates! If it's a holiday it goes over here, if it's a date it goes over here. And all the lines need to be filled. Why is that so, why is that so difficult?"
The tape indicates one child apparently didn't understand what the words he was copying meant. This is what he was told.
Ms. Williams: "You don't need to know what it say. Just write it on the line".
The Stablers said they were told by school officials, Ms. Williams was placed on leave with pay during an investigation that started December 11th.
On December 18th, the teaching assistant confirmed she was called into the school district office and fired.
Biloxi School Superintendent Dr. Paul Tisdale, who could not confirm that, said, "It is an expectation in Biloxi Public Schools that employees communicate with students, parents, and staff in a professional manner. When these expectations are not met and are brought to the attention of administrators, the facts are checked to determine an appropriate course of administrative action. We can not comment publicly on personnel matters."
Before this story aired, Ms. Williams came to the WLOX Studios and listened to the tape. Wednesday morning, her attorney Alvin Chase also listened to the recording. They both emphasized that until this incident, Ms. Williams had never been reprimanded by the Biloxi School District and gave this statement.
"I apologize to the student or students that felt I was rude to them. I also apologize to the parents or guardians of those students if my actions or conduct in the presence of their child or children on that day appeared or led them to conclude that I was being less than professional. I further apologize to the BPS District. If my temperament caused any hardship to a student or parent, I apologize. My only intention ultimately working as a teacher assistant was to carry out my duties in a matter of excellence and serve the students."
Her attorney did confirm to WLOX News that Ms. Mershelia Williams has been terminated from the Biloxi School District.
WOW..... Okay.... Ms. Williams clearly is barely literate, and should be in the first grade instead of teaching it. Gabe speaks better English than she does. In a country not sliding into degradation, a restraining order would keep her from coming within a hundred yards of a school.
Why the hell do we permit this sort of thing? Ms. Williams is black. The story carefully doesn't say so, but it doesn't have to. Only the black uneducated speak as she does.
The proper response from parents would be fury. The discovery that this creature is attempting to turn their children into the equivalent of farm animals ought to result in the lynching of the school board of Mississippi. A civilized people with backbone will not allow their their offspring to be made into gurbling iPodded peasants. But we are not such a civilization. Why is it happening? "Affirmative action." Since Ms. Williams does not speak the language of the country, the only possible reason for hiring her is that she is black. She is not just slightly unqualified, allowing an expectation that she might catch up—this being the founding fantasy of "affirmative action"—but absolutely unqualified!!!
The pattern repeats endlessly. I have read that the Chicago police contemplate eliminating their entrance examination on the grounds that not enough blacks pass it. Firemen of my acquaintance here in Surprise, tell of women too weak to handle a hose, of female paramedics who can't carry a stretcher. (I'll probably get some kick-back on this one from somebody).
On intercity buses there once were signs, and probably still are, saying, "Seating is without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or national origin." Today everything seems to be with regard to nothing else. Anything, everything, must be done to keep the affirmative-action classes happy. This rush to degradation is not new. The bald, statistically verifiable truth is that the teachers' colleges, probably on ideological grounds, have produced an incredible proportion of incompetent black teachers. Evidence of this appears periodically, as, for example, in the results of a competency test given to applicants for teaching positions in Pinellas County, Florida (which includes St. Petersburg and Clearwater), cited in cited in Time, June 16, 1980.... http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924217,00.html To pass this grueling examination, an applicant had to be able to read at the tenth-grade level and do arithmetic at the eighth-grade level. Though they all held B.A.'s, 25 percent of the whites and 79 percent of the blacks failed. Similar statistics exist for other places."
If you think it desirable to have black teachers, as I do believe it desirable, then get those who are fit to do the job. Plenty of blacks speak English. If you can't find enough, then do without. The same applies to women who can't carry stretchers. Fat chance, though.
What price do we pay for this total surrender of responsibility, civilizational self-respect, reason? One price is a quiet contempt for blacks, and hostility toward them. Competent blacks are no problem, but "If he doan be eatin dis sangwidge..." doesn't cut it. Women make perfectly good paramedics, but what is anyone, fellow crewman or patient, supposed to think when she can't lift the stretcher? (Answer: Scorn, anger.) What does a patient think on seeing a black doctor come his way? "Oh god... the doctor may have gotten through medical school on ability but, given affirmative action, you figure he probably didn't." Blacks know this of course, and resent it. Knowing that they are despised, they say the hell with it, and content themselves with just getting by. This is useful?
The suspicion of affirmative action pervades American life. After Katrina, a friend in federal employ visited FEMA. It was, he said, very heavily black, on which fact he blamed the disastrous performance of the agency in New Orleans. Was he right? I don't know. In the absence of affirmative action, the question would not be asked.
Thus the defining principle of American politics arises: If you don't think in racial terms, if you look only to ability, you are a racist. Count me in.
This leads to another question, seldom asked and never answered: how much does affirmative action really cost the country? If you hire someone to do a job who can't do it very well, it doesn't get done very well. This doesn't strike me as a profound thought, but it seems to elude many people. In the case of Ms. Williams, the damage is great and very, very clear. But it isn't always so stark, is it. When you regularly pass over the first 135 people, all white, on a test for promotion to sergeant in a police department, so as to get to the blacks and Latinos, what kind of police department do you get? If you hire reasonably good female engineers because they are female, instead of very good males, the consequences are less obvious, but there.
And when it becomes a firing offense to notice, the result is a permanent, irremediable drop in the quality of the work force. I don't suppose it really matters though. The only serious economic competitors the US faces are.... oh, Japan, South Korea, China, India, Taiwan, Brazil, and the European Union. Piece of cake, huh. ....Warph
Amen Warph.
I am sure that this is not the norm and positive that it isn't in our schools. What can we, here in Elk County, do about the situation. Nothing. That is for the local school authorities to do. So I am not going to lose sleep over something that I can't do anything about. I know that sounds hard hearted and selfish, but I have done my share in the class rooms. I am doing my share now by paying my taxes cheerfully. I am going to keep my nose out of local affairs far across the country. If the parents of these children can't handle the situation without pulling the whole country into it, then maybe they need some of that federal interference that some people are so against. Actually the whole country would be better off if situations like this were kept and solved locally, not nationally. Anyone that disagrees with me is welcome to get on their high horse, gallop off across the country weilding their sword and show that school district that these children need a better teacher. Good luck.
Pro Life! What a shame someone didn't know what was going on in the house in North Newton. No ones business cost a child his life after much torture. And yes I know opinion are just like a**holes, everybody has one. So Steve just keep your rave going. ::)
Warph, if you are expecting a come back from me you would be wrong. Our firefighter women hose handle just fine thank you. If they can't do the job they don't do the job. As we age out, we all generally retire off the equipment, but continue on as trainers and administrative staff. Here our paramedics come in non transport vehicles and we, the EMT's, carry the patients. Frankly, most of the time the paramedics don't have to lift because we do it. For an extremely heavy patient we all work together. We EMT's have all had training in proper body mechanics regarding lifting and learn what's called "lifts, loads and carries." It includes proper patient packaging, negotiating staircases, narrow hallways, transferring over walls etc. Not all pieces of equipment are right for every job. It's much more than grab and lift or somebody will get hurt. You have to know when a two man lift isn't going to be enough and when to go to a 4 man or even a six man carry. We even have hydraulic stretchers now that don't have to be lifted to load them in the ambulance.
Our paramedics have very little training on the equipment we carry on board. They do most of the IV's, drugs and EKG's and we do the rest. Once again, talk about specific cases if you want, but to generalize is to do us all a grave injustice. As far as that school situation...note it was in Mississippi, probably in a poor black district in a rough section of Biloxi. Good luck finding the top best teachers working there. It takes huge amounts of dedication. I could tell you a lot about that little guy and what he probably really wanted, but it can wait for another time.
Quote from: Wilma on April 03, 2010, 01:18:07 PM
I am sure that this is not the norm and positive that it isn't in our schools. What can we, here in Elk County, do about the situation. Nothing.
Wrong. We can demand tougher standards when it comes to hiring procedures and background checks etc, for teachers and school officals. We can continue to be viligent to ensure these kinds of teachers are not hired.
Diane, you totally missed the point of Warphs post. As far as the school situation...I don't give a damn where the school is located, that teachers actions were inexcusable. And in case you missed it, that "little guy" in the article was hard of hearing.
Quote from: Varmit on April 05, 2010, 08:02:58 AM
Wrong. We can demand tougher standards when it comes to hiring procedures and background checks etc, for teachers and school officals. We can continue to be viligent to ensure these kinds of teachers are not hired.
Diane, you totally missed the point of Warphs post. As far as the school situation...I don't give a damn where the school is located, that teachers actions were inexcusable. And in case you missed it, that "little guy" in the article was hard of hearing.
If it can happen in a school in mississippi, it can happen in elk county. The fact is that we should not tolerate it in mississippi or in elk county. Some would say its none of elk countians concern, but the reality is yes it is. Federal tax dollars go to pay for all schools. Who pays federal tax dollars? Citizens in every single state. So yes all citizens can stand up and demand that mississippi, or Kansas schools set their standards for the staff higher.
As far as the school districtu being too poor to hire qualified teachers, BULLL. They chose to not hire a qualified teacher, and bring in assistants. being that its in mississippi, a whole lot of hiring illiterate assistants is due to affirmative action.
Varmit,I didn't miss anything. By the time everybody got done taking shots at the situation, that "teacher assistant" (a teacher's aide) got turned into the classroom teacher! I certainly don't agree with what the aide seems to have done, but as usual, I'd have to know more before I'd be so fast to pass judgement. Aide jobs don't have the requirements that the teacher does. If that's an area where blacks commonly speak that poorly...well. Cast the first stone. Several of you are quick to defend your speech and spelling errors. Yes, I got that he was hearing impaired. I have no doubt that was considered just as it was in my class. Mild impairment, the kids are seated where they can hear best and can see the teacher's mouth, worse impairment, they take signing or go to schools for the deaf. In special situations they'll have an interpreter with them. They are taught to focus and pay attention.They are not treated as "poor little deaf kids"who get pity and are allowed to break the classroom rules by wandering around or insisting for special help whenever it crosses their minds. They are supposed to try to figure things out just like everybody else before they ask for help and then only if the teacher (or aide) is available and not doing reading group or some such. Kids just can't be interrupting all the time. I had plenty of time to give extra help or reexplain things, but it was during time set aside for just that. Unless you know something about classroom organization on a regular basis, you wouldn't know how it works, or be expected to.
Steve, where did it say that the teacher wasn't qualified? If that is a predominantly black school in a black area why would affirmative action have anything to do with it?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 05, 2010, 09:27:24 AM
Varmit,I didn't miss anything. By the time everybody got done taking shots at the situation, that "teacher assistant" (a teacher's aide) got turned into the classroom teacher! I certainly don't agree with what the aide seems to have done, but as usual, I'd have to know more before I'd be so fast to pass judgement. Aide jobs don't have the requirements that the teacher does. If that's an area where blacks commonly speak that poorly...well. Cast the first stone. Several of you are quick to defend your speech and spelling errors. Yes, I got that he was hearing impaired. I have no doubt that was considered just as it was in my class. Mild impairment, the kids are seated where they can hear best and can see the teacher's mouth, worse impairment, they take signing or go to schools for the deaf. In special situations they'll have an interpreter with them. They are taught to focus and pay attention.They are not treated as "poor little deaf kids"who get pity and are allowed to break the classroom rules by wandering around or insisting for special help whenever it crosses their minds. They are supposed to try to figure things out just like everybody else before they ask for help and then only if the teacher (or aide) is available and not doing reading group or some such. Kids just can't be interrupting all the time. I had plenty of time to give extra help or reexplain things, but it was during time set aside for just that. Unless you know something about classroom organization on a regular basis, you wouldn't know how it works, or be expected to.
Steve, where did it say that the teacher wasn't qualified? If that is a predominantly black school in a black area why would affirmative action have anything to do with it?
It wasn't a qualified teacher in the class, it was a unqualified assistant.
As far as afffirmative action, you have to live there to understand. the area is so poor that they implement affirmative action anway to keep out the white teachers. You think that the white folks were bad in discrimination and yes they could be bad back then, but it is nothing compared to the racial discrimination the blacks pull on the whites in the south.
Like i said you have to live amonst it before you start to see it and understand it happens.
Are you trying to say that there was no certified, qualified teacher assigned to that class at all, and the aide was all there was? That is a whole different thing. Nowhere does the article say that. I thought the problem was when the aide was working with a group that the little boy was in, not that the aide was the only adult ever in touch with the kids in a self contained classroom. That's absolutely not the way it should be. Why would anyone expect her to know the details of daily classroom organization and timing. She should have never been put in that position. Was she acting as a short term substitute? There is something very wrong there! Why was she always there alone?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 05, 2010, 11:07:28 AM
Are you trying to say that there was no certified, qualified teacher assigned to that class at all, and the aide was all there was? That is a whole different thing. Nowhere does the article say that. I thought the problem was when the aide was working with a group that the little boy was in, not that the aide was the only adult ever in touch with the kids in a self contained classroom. That's absolutely not the way it should be. Why would anyone expect her to know the details of daily classroom organization and timing. She should have never been put in that position. Was she acting as a short term substitute? There is something very wrong there! Why was she always there alone?
I kinda gathered that from the article. look at it, would a teacher in the room put up with the comments made by her assitant??? IF so, the teacher should be fired. The article said the parents came to the administrator not the teacher. IF the teacher didn't come to the administrator then she should be fired as well for covering up.
And yes if you ever go to mississippi or alabama many of the schools don't have qualified teachers its just not discussed.
Sad, very sad.