F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
May 1, 2014 8:57pm
Ridiculous. Yes, Gilmour, Ignatius, and St Ed's are all private, parochial schools, but this makes no sense to me. If a student wants to smoke pot off campus, the school should have no right in defeating that.
Back in the day, my brother was getting straight A's at Gilmour Academy. Went on to get his engineering degree at Case Tech. Smoking weed never stopped him from realizing his dream...and success in the business world.
Hopefully enrollment will drop significantly.
Back in the day, my brother was getting straight A's at Gilmour Academy. Went on to get his engineering degree at Case Tech. Smoking weed never stopped him from realizing his dream...and success in the business world.
Hopefully enrollment will drop significantly.
Belly35
Posts: 9,716
May 1, 2014 9:28pm
Who smokes pot off school property .... That why school lunch was created....
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
May 1, 2014 10:51pm
LOL Wedge, and for every one like your brother who turned out okay three slipped into an abyss. From what I understand about this, it is about intervention and not punishment. You are talking 14,15, 16, 17 year old kids here. I have no problem with adults and more mature people and recreational drug use....but I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep your kids safe and out of that culture at least until such time as they have the maturity to make intelligent decisions.Ridiculous. Yes, Gilmour, Ignatius, and St Ed's are all private, parochial schools, but this makes no sense to me. If a student wants to smoke pot off campus, the school should have no right in defeating that.
Back in the day, my brother was getting straight A's at Gilmour Academy. Went on to get his engineering degree at Case Tech. Smoking weed never stopped him from realizing his dream...and success in the business world.
Hopefully enrollment will drop significantly.
You are also talking St. Ignatius, Gilmour and St Ed's...that's a privledge to go to those schools. If you want to do drugs, go to a public school and quit wasting somebody's money.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
May 2, 2014 1:20am
3/4 slip into abyss? I highly doubt that Hits. We live in a so called free society and people, even 15 year olds can make their own decisions. We are no longer a free society. Orwell had it correct.HitsRus;1611816 wrote:LOL Wedge, and for every one like your brother who turned out okay three slipped into an abyss. From what I understand about this, it is about intervention and not punishment. You are talking 14,15, 16, 17 year old kids here. I have no problem with adults and more mature people and recreational drug use....but I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep your kids safe and out of that culture at least until such time as they have the maturity to make intelligent decisions.
You are also talking St. Ignatius, Gilmour and St Ed's...that's a privledge to go to those schools. If you want to do drugs, go to a public school and quit wasting somebody's money.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
May 2, 2014 1:23am
Not at all mad. Just sharing my libertarian viewpoint. For the record, I haven't toked a doobie in over 35 years. What people do off campus should be no concern to these schools. If their grades suffer, then boot em out.ccrunner609;1611759 wrote:They are "private" schools. Why you so mad?
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
May 2, 2014 6:46am
Footwedge;1611837 wrote:Not at all mad. Just sharing my libertarian viewpoint. For the record, I haven't toked a doobie in over 35 years. What people do off campus should be no concern to these schools. If their grades suffer, then boot em out.
Those respective schools are about more than graades. If the parents don't want to commit their child to a certain set of ideals and code of conduct then they are free to go elsewhere for their educational services.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
May 2, 2014 6:47am
Footwedge;1611836 wrote:3/4 slip into abyss? I highly doubt that Hits. We live in a so called free society and people, even 15 year olds can make their own decisions. We are no longer a free society. Orwell had it correct.
15 year olds cannot make their own decisions about education. They are minors and are dependent upon the final approval of their legal guardian.
A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
May 2, 2014 7:47am
Even though it was 35 years ago, it has lasting effects. All you have to do is read your Breowns playoff thread to see that.Footwedge;1611837 wrote:Not at all mad. Just sharing my libertarian viewpoint. For the record, I haven't toked a doobie in over 35 years. What people do off campus should be no concern to these schools. If their grades suffer, then boot em out.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
May 2, 2014 8:08am
REPS!Al Bundy;1611852 wrote:Even though it was 35 years ago, it has lasting effects. All you have to do is read your Breowns playoff thread to see that.
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
May 2, 2014 8:42am
God damnit I agree with Footwedge
Yes, these are private schools and they're well within their rights, but the issue is that there are plenty of publics instituting the same thing right now. There are 2-3 in Mahoning and Columbiana Counties looking at it right now.
I've never understood how a public school was allowed to issue punishment for anything that happens off of their grounds or under their immediate supervision. They should be punished by no one other than their parents (or police if they get arrested for something) for shit that has nothing to do with school. But courts consistently rule that schools can essentially do whatever the hell they want. If only the schools would worry about improving education instead of these little power tripping distractions. Not to mention that money could be used on other things to improve the actual education too.
Yes, these are private schools and they're well within their rights, but the issue is that there are plenty of publics instituting the same thing right now. There are 2-3 in Mahoning and Columbiana Counties looking at it right now.
I've never understood how a public school was allowed to issue punishment for anything that happens off of their grounds or under their immediate supervision. They should be punished by no one other than their parents (or police if they get arrested for something) for shit that has nothing to do with school. But courts consistently rule that schools can essentially do whatever the hell they want. If only the schools would worry about improving education instead of these little power tripping distractions. Not to mention that money could be used on other things to improve the actual education too.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
May 2, 2014 8:52am
Especially when it leads to utter bullshit like when a Mansfield-area school (Clear Fork) suspended a kid and/or kicked him off the soccer (or some sports) team solely because he retweeted a picture of weed on 4/20. He wasn't caught smoking weed, he wasn't caught in possession of weed, he wasn't even caught on social media talking about smoking weed...he was just "caught" retweeting a picture of it.ts1227;1611862 wrote:God damnit I agree with Footwedge
Yes, these are private schools and they're well within their rights, but the issue is that there are plenty of publics instituting the same thing right now. There are 2-3 in Mahoning and Columbiana Counties looking at it right now.
I've never understood how a public school was allowed to issue punishment for anything that happens off of their grounds or under their immediate supervision. They should be punished by no one other than their parents (or police if they get arrested for something) for shit that has nothing to do with school. But courts consistently rule that schools can essentially do whatever the hell they want. If only the schools would worry about improving education instead of these little power tripping distractions. Not to mention that money could be used on other things to improve the actual education too.
From what I've read, his family is suing the school for that and hopefully they bury the administration.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
May 2, 2014 9:50am
These particular schools have been clear in their policy that there are no punitive results associated with the tests....
Every positive test will be subject to an automatic retest. First positive retest, school counseling and opportunity to engage in informal rehab/treatment, then a second test at an undetermined time. Second positive retest is mandatory rehab/treatment.
Every positive test will be subject to an automatic retest. First positive retest, school counseling and opportunity to engage in informal rehab/treatment, then a second test at an undetermined time. Second positive retest is mandatory rehab/treatment.
G
Gblock
May 2, 2014 9:50am
my only real problem with this is that it is not the schools job to raise or police your kid. that is your job as a parent. drug tests cost less than 20$ at cvs. it seems nowadays parents just wanna drop off their kid at school and let the school educate them and now add to that the job of disciplining them and teaching them right from wrong. do your job as parents and this would not be neccessary
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
May 2, 2014 9:54am
Gblock;1611885 wrote:my only real problem with this is that it is not the schools job to raise or police your kid. that is your job as a parent. drug tests cost less than 20$ at cvs. it seems nowadays parents just wanna drop off their kid at school and let the school educate them and now add to that the job of disciplining them and teaching them right from wrong. do your job as parents and this would not be neccessary
Although I agree with most everything in your post, I would consider choosing a parochial school who drug tests and has a code of conduct as a parental effort to surround the child in an environment that's most conducive to academic achievement and reflective of the culture the parents are trying to emulate.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
May 2, 2014 10:03am
Interesting comments on both sides of the issue.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/05/drug_testing_at_st_edward_st_i.html
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/05/drug_testing_at_st_edward_st_i.html
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
May 2, 2014 10:04am
They don't have the standing to say that unequivocally when the cops show up.Con_Alma;1611884 wrote:These particular schools have been clear in their policy that there are no punitive results associated with the tests....
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
May 2, 2014 10:05am
...with regards to activities within the school?????queencitybuckeye;1611893 wrote:They don't have the standing to say that unequivocally when the cops show up.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
May 2, 2014 10:53am
No punitive actions are to be taken...intervention only. I think that falls within an educational institutions scope. We are talking minors here.I've never understood how a public school was allowed to issue punishment for anything that happens off of their grounds or under their immediate supervision. They should be punished by no one other than their parents (or police if they get arrested for something) for shit that has nothing to do with school.
Every positive test will be subject to an automatic retest. First positive retest, school counseling and opportunity to engage in informal rehab/treatment, then a second test at an undetermined time. Second positive retest is mandatory rehab/treatment.
3/4 slip into abyss? I highly doubt that Hits. We live in a so called free society and people, even 15 year olds can make their own decisions
So if it's only 1/4 is that enough? C'mon wedge....we are talking minors here...libertarianism is for adults.
The programs are geared for intervention. That he smoked a 'doobie' isn't the problem as much as it can and does expose immature, impressionable kids to individuals who could take them further down a dark path.
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
May 2, 2014 12:53pm
But for public schools, should taxpayers really be on the hook for the school not minding their own damn business about stuff that's none of their concern if it's not happening on their watch?HitsRus;1611927 wrote:No punitive actions are to be taken...intervention only. I think that falls within an educational institutions scope. We are talking minors here.
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
May 2, 2014 12:57pm
I don't think Orwell had it right as much as Huxley (Brave New World) did. Perhaps a bit if both.Footwedge;1611836 wrote:... Orwell had it correct.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
May 2, 2014 1:05pm
Thats up to the taxpayers in that public school district.ts1227;1611980 wrote:But for public schools, should taxpayers really be on the hook for the school not minding their own damn business about stuff that's none of their concern if it's not happening on their watch?
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
May 2, 2014 1:19pm
Maybe, maybe not. Students in public schools have rights, and rights cannot be voted away.majorspark;1611987 wrote:Thats up to the taxpayers in that public school district.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
May 2, 2014 1:29pm
Thats a different argument. Point is if taxpayers don't want to "be on the hook" they can deny new or renewal funds to the district with that policy in place.queencitybuckeye;1611991 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. Students in public schools have rights, and rights cannot be voted away.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
May 2, 2014 1:33pm
True.majorspark;1611995 wrote:Thats a different argument. Point is if taxpayers don't want to "be on the hook" they can deny new or renewal funds to the district with that policy in place.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
May 2, 2014 5:10pm
Is it really a parental effort? Seems to me these parents would be more than capable of policing this on their own.Con_Alma;1611886 wrote:Although I agree with most everything in your post, I would consider choosing a parochial school who drug tests and has a code of conduct as a parental effort to surround the child in an environment that's most conducive to academic achievement and reflective of the culture the parents are trying to emulate.
And I think private schools should be looking for ways to slow run-away tuition costs rather than tack-on ineffective, non-value added expenses no matter how trivial.