I Wear Pants;1145529 wrote:"Rules are rules" and "zero tolerance" are code for "we are too lazy and stupid to actually think about the proper response to individual cases and situations".

Steel Valley Football;1145643 wrote:Ok, so they'd need a list of this diseases. What if a case where a disease they hadn't thought of comes up?

What about an auto accident where there the mom became paralyzed and needed help to eat? Would that apply also? If so, what if the auto accident was a result of the mom doing drugs and she killed someone else in another car?

Hopefully, you see where I'm going w this. There are too many variables so they have a general rule in place and they work from there. Which is exactly what happened in this case. But, instead of thinking it through, people just immediately throw dumb comments around about how dumb and lazy the school ADs are.

brutus161;1145422 wrote:They reversed the decision. He can walk.

Apple;1145740 wrote:Front page of the Canton Rep today: "FISH WALKS!"

It looks like the school made the right decision.

justincredible;1145746 wrote:Not according to the rules. Because the rules are the most important thing.

I Wear Pants;1145655 wrote:They don't need a list of diseases. Not everything needs to be a hyper controlled bureaucratic cluster****.*

That's the laziness I'm talking about. Wanting to have a reaction and reprimand and solution to every possible situation already thought out is impossible and so your solution is to just make blanket policies. That's what our school boards do now and it blows. Sure if they react on a situation by situation basis they may occasionally run into a snafu but it's simply the right thing to do.*

A great example would be with fights. Most schools today have zero tolerance policies wherein if you are in a fight you are suspended no matter the circumstances. Not exactly fair for someone who gets attacked and doesn't retaliate or only retaliates enough to get separation or to settle the situation. Blanket policies don't serve that person justly.*

Just as blanket policies on things like excused absences don't justly apply to students who are caring for their terminally ill parents.

And the school administration is dumb and lazy. If they weren't they would have ****ing known about the kid's situation or talked to him when he came close to/went over the allowed days missed and they would have came to the conclusion (if they had a brain or heart) that the kid deserved to walk (assuming his grades are in line with graduation requirements).

justincredible;1145734 wrote:If I could post a fart noise I would.

High school's aren't prisons. Their purpose isn't to drown kids with rules and make their high school experience crap because them. Special circumstances do come up. Hopefully, you see where I'm going w this.

justincredible;1145734 wrote:If I could post a fart noise I would.

Steel Valley Football;1145813 wrote:Their purpose is to educate students. That's it. Rules are needed to do that. A special circumstance did come up and it was handled. That doesn't mean the rule is now out the window. It's the best system unde the current setup. What you seem to want just won't work. Not as the schools are funded now. You're talking about a logistics nightmare.

Pick6;1145425 wrote:I dont buy the fact that all of his unexcused absences are from taking care of his mother. Kids skip school for being "sick" all of the time. I'd be willing to bet that the kid could have taken proper steps to getting his absences excused. When I was in high school (graduated in 09) a hand written note from your parents (no matter the excuse) was good enough to get excused.

justincredible;1145819 wrote:Exactly. The school realized it was a mistake to keep the kid from walking due to his special circumstances and bent the rules​. WTF do you think we've been arguing about here?

Steel Valley Football;1145827 wrote:I didn't see you argue much for anything. It was mostly sarcasm and light-hearted insults. I did see IWP argue against have an attendance or fighting rule in place at all. I saw you suggest that schools need to make students' experience more enjoyable. I'm not getting on board that train though.

Steel Valley Football;1145831 wrote:Make sense Justin. I've met you, as well, and you don't seem like a dumb guy at all.

Steel Valley Football;1145832 wrote:So, Justin, what if what thavoice suggested is true? Should there be a checks and balance system in place? Or should the schools just take every student's claim at face value?

Since you obviously DIDN'T see where I was going w that.

thavoice;1145841 wrote:WHo knows, he may get very good grades. He may do good work, but attendance is also important.

justincredible;1145839 wrote:I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about my point of view. Special circumstances happen that require schools to look at individual cases instead of just applying a general, arbitrary rule. It's high school, it isn't serious business. And it appears Carrollton finally realized this and made the right decision.

Steel Valley Football;1145871 wrote:It isn't hard to understand. It's simply hard to implement for the school, which is why the rule system is in place as it is. It deters every student from wanting their special case reviewed.

We also differ on the basics here. Students need rules and structure. They don't need a school system saying "do what you want then we'll review your situation and see if you're case is special".