5 ms·

what school did you go to - drugs and weapons were everywhere in my school. I bought pot off my classmates.

by vivekd 10y ago

pavel_lishin 10y ago
Wouldn't these same classmates also be likely to participate in extracurricular sports, attend religious events, etc? If drugs were everywhere in school, the kids aren't leaving them in lockers when they go home, and it's not like there's a big tall wall that separates these alleged weapon-smuggling drug dealers from the "good kids" on the home-schooled side either.
- vivekd 10y ago
  Because church groups and extracurricular sports teams and home schools all have a stake in protecting the kids. School shootings, stabbings and drug dealings happen every day, and no one gets fired, no one gets in trouble, no one gets sued. It is very different with other groups like churches or sports teams. If any other organization had anywhere near the track record for deaths and serious injuries and addictions that government run schools had with our children, it would be shut down in no time.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Who do you expect to get fired for a school shooting? And what do you mean, no one gets sued? That's flat-out not true. http://www.heraldnet.com/news/teacher-wants-out-of-marysville-pilchuck-shooting-lawsuit/ http://www.heraldnet.com/news/teacher-wants-out-of-marysvill... http://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/350k-lawsuit-filed-madison-school-shooting/LBQs9ZvxA1YVOyydXfcMJO/ http://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/350k-lawsuit-filed-madis... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/families-washington-school-shooting-victims-sue-article-1.2490878 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/families-washington...
    - vivekd 10y ago
      Only one of those incidents is of a lawsuit against a teacher, the other two incidents are of a lawsuit against the families. And there is a very good reason for this. There is state immunity granted to teachers and schools in that they cannot be sued for grossly negligent supervision that allows a stream of drugs, guns, knives and sex to flow into children under their care. You can see it mentioned in your first article: >her attorneys cite a state law that gives school districts and their employees immunity from liability if they make a good faith effort to report threats of violence. so even if a student threatens violence, as long as the teacher reports it, there will no liability to her or the school even if they didn't do anything to stop the violence or supervise the children adequately. This statute is actually more lenient than other areas where it is complete immunity. Now this immunity is limited to state actors and does not apply to private schools, churches or sports teams. And I believe that without these protections public schools would have been sued out of existence long ago for the horrible things constantly happening to children under their care.
      - pavel_lishin 10y ago
        > as long as the teacher reports it, there will no liability to her or the school even if they didn't do anything to stop the violence I'm not sure what you expect a teacher to do. Break the student's arms? Search their bag, home, neighborhood for any guns and remove them? Duct-tape them to their desk and set a bucket underneath?
        vivekd 10y ago
        No I just meant that under ordinary cirumstances, where there is no explicit threat made, there can be no legal liability on part of the school or teacher. And even when there is a threat made, so long as some report is made to her superiors (under the statute it's made reasonable attempts to report, not actually report and says report not call law enforcement or take steps like suspension or talking to the kid") there can be no legal liability. That's an extraordinary amount of protection from legal liability that private sector actors do not enjoy. In the private sector you can get sued for negligent supervision, and failing to act on threats can get you sued, you can't just say "I reported it to my supervisors" and leave it at that. I'm not faulting the teachers, I'm talking more about legal liability in terms of sovereign immunity which limits or negates the liability of states from lawsuits. http://usedulaw.com/340-immunity-educational-law.html http://usedulaw.com/340-immunity-educational-law.html
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    > what school did you go to Nice enough to have a few decent AP classes, bad enough that we walked through metal detectors. But my assessment is even more colored by the dozens of schools I've volunteered in. What kind of school did you go to? > Because church groups and extracurricular sports teams and home schools all have a stake in protecting the kids What about unstructured socializing? Or are you suggesting that children should spend the first 18 years of their life under constant adult supervision? Basically, my point is this: whenever there are weapons and drugs in the school, there are a lot more of those same weapons and drugs outside of school. So either you have to keep a constant eye on the kids and and strictly control the social group until they leave for college, or else these problems are more pronounced outside of school than inside of school. > School shootings, stabbings and drug dealings happen every day, and no one gets fired, no one gets in trouble, no one gets sued Nothing you're saying here is factually accurate. School shooters typically kill themselves or are killed. School officials (teachers, etc.) are often themselves killed during school shootings. Complaining that those officials aren't posthumously fired seems... crazy. Families effected by school shootings do sue. And people definitely get in trouble all the time for dealing drugs and bringing weapons to school. Which is why both are far more common outside of school.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      > What about unstructured socializing? I disagree with vivekd on many points, but I don't think that schools offer many more unstructured opportunities for socialization than their examples. They get a few minutes in the hallway, and then maybe lunch, and then extracurricular activities - which he's already suggesting anyway.
      - throwaway729 10y ago
        Yes, I'm not making that argument. My argument is only that you aren't going to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons" by avoiding school -- at least not without being overbearing. I.e., if you rule out all unstructured socializing, then avoiding school might be an effective way to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons". But if you don't rule out unstructured socializing, then ruling out school isn't going to help much.
rexpop 10y ago
Among high schoolers, within the month they were surveyed: 35% drank some alcohol 21% binge drank (consuming an excessive amount) 22% rode in someone’s car who’d been drinking 10% drove after drinking The stats show that marijuana use is rampant: 35.1% of 12th graders have smoked pot in the past year 21.3% of 12th graders have smoked pot in the last 30 days 16.6% of 10th graders have smoked pot in the last 30 days 6% of 12th graders say they use marijuana every day 81% of 12th graders say it would be easy to get marijuana Only 32% of 12th graders feel that regular marijuana use is harmful — https://www.teenrehabcenter.org/resources/high-school-drug-use/ https://www.teenrehabcenter.org/resources/high-school-drug-u... ...checks out.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  No one is denying that students experiment with sex and drugs. Rather, the observation is that these things happen mostly outside of school, so avoiding schools isn't an effective way of avoiding this things. The link between school and these activities is, IMO, largely specious. Or at the very least completely unsubstantiated by evidence. Or are you seriously suggesting that kids are binge drinking and lighting up in between history and chemistry? Basically, vivek's argument is that by not sending your kids to school you avoid all of these behaviors. But these behaviors are far more common outside of school that within school. Home schooling doesn't replace effective parenting, and sending your kdis to a school doesn't preclude effective parenting. Finally, I think it's worth asking so what?! to a lot of your statistics. Particularly the "drank some alcohol" and "smoked pot in the last 30 days" statistics. These things aren't a priori bad, and drinking at that age isn't even illegal in a lot of developed countries (and even in some places in the US, under adult supervision).
- throwaway729 10y ago
  Also, I REALLY hate that link you posted. It's my observation that this sort of propaganda does far more harm than good. Kids are smart. Claims that "marijuana and drinking are bad" tend to only have the effect of discrediting the speaker. Those claims are mostly specious, and kids know how to use Google. Citing something like "68% of 12th graders have tried alcohol" in a page decrying substance abuse makes one look like a scare mongering idiot. Seriously, these are 18 year olds -- that number is almost certainly close to 100% in a lot of developed countries. But kids are also stupid. If you go on to tell them "binge drinking is bad, avoid it" or "prolonged marijuana use really can cause serious harm", they'll extrapolate that you're BSing them about that too. Basically, scare mongering about any drug use only has the effect of making it far harder to warn kids about actual dangers.

what school did you go to - drugs and weapons were everywhere in my school. I bought pot off my classmates.

by vivekd 10y ago

what school did you go to - drugs and weapons were everywhere in my school. I bought pot off my classmates.

Wouldn't these same classmates also be likely to participate in extracurricular sports, attend religious events, etc? If drugs were everywhere in school, the kids aren't leaving them in lockers when they go home, and it's not like there's a big tall wall that separates these alleged weapon-smuggling drug dealers from the "good kids" on the home-schooled side either.

vivekd 10y ago
Because church groups and extracurricular sports teams and home schools all have a stake in protecting the kids. School shootings, stabbings and drug dealings happen every day, and no one gets fired, no one gets in trouble, no one gets sued. It is very different with other groups like churches or sports teams. If any other organization had anywhere near the track record for deaths and serious injuries and addictions that government run schools had with our children, it would be shut down in no time.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Who do you expect to get fired for a school shooting? And what do you mean, no one gets sued? That's flat-out not true. http://www.heraldnet.com/news/teacher-wants-out-of-marysville-pilchuck-shooting-lawsuit/ http://www.heraldnet.com/news/teacher-wants-out-of-marysvill... http://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/350k-lawsuit-filed-madison-school-shooting/LBQs9ZvxA1YVOyydXfcMJO/ http://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/350k-lawsuit-filed-madis... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/families-washington-school-shooting-victims-sue-article-1.2490878 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/families-washington...
  - vivekd 10y ago
    Only one of those incidents is of a lawsuit against a teacher, the other two incidents are of a lawsuit against the families. And there is a very good reason for this. There is state immunity granted to teachers and schools in that they cannot be sued for grossly negligent supervision that allows a stream of drugs, guns, knives and sex to flow into children under their care. You can see it mentioned in your first article: >her attorneys cite a state law that gives school districts and their employees immunity from liability if they make a good faith effort to report threats of violence. so even if a student threatens violence, as long as the teacher reports it, there will no liability to her or the school even if they didn't do anything to stop the violence or supervise the children adequately. This statute is actually more lenient than other areas where it is complete immunity. Now this immunity is limited to state actors and does not apply to private schools, churches or sports teams. And I believe that without these protections public schools would have been sued out of existence long ago for the horrible things constantly happening to children under their care.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      > as long as the teacher reports it, there will no liability to her or the school even if they didn't do anything to stop the violence I'm not sure what you expect a teacher to do. Break the student's arms? Search their bag, home, neighborhood for any guns and remove them? Duct-tape them to their desk and set a bucket underneath?
      - vivekd 10y ago
        No I just meant that under ordinary cirumstances, where there is no explicit threat made, there can be no legal liability on part of the school or teacher. And even when there is a threat made, so long as some report is made to her superiors (under the statute it's made reasonable attempts to report, not actually report and says report not call law enforcement or take steps like suspension or talking to the kid") there can be no legal liability. That's an extraordinary amount of protection from legal liability that private sector actors do not enjoy. In the private sector you can get sued for negligent supervision, and failing to act on threats can get you sued, you can't just say "I reported it to my supervisors" and leave it at that. I'm not faulting the teachers, I'm talking more about legal liability in terms of sovereign immunity which limits or negates the liability of states from lawsuits. http://usedulaw.com/340-immunity-educational-law.html http://usedulaw.com/340-immunity-educational-law.html
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > what school did you go to Nice enough to have a few decent AP classes, bad enough that we walked through metal detectors. But my assessment is even more colored by the dozens of schools I've volunteered in. What kind of school did you go to? > Because church groups and extracurricular sports teams and home schools all have a stake in protecting the kids What about unstructured socializing? Or are you suggesting that children should spend the first 18 years of their life under constant adult supervision? Basically, my point is this: whenever there are weapons and drugs in the school, there are a lot more of those same weapons and drugs outside of school. So either you have to keep a constant eye on the kids and and strictly control the social group until they leave for college, or else these problems are more pronounced outside of school than inside of school. > School shootings, stabbings and drug dealings happen every day, and no one gets fired, no one gets in trouble, no one gets sued Nothing you're saying here is factually accurate. School shooters typically kill themselves or are killed. School officials (teachers, etc.) are often themselves killed during school shootings. Complaining that those officials aren't posthumously fired seems... crazy. Families effected by school shootings do sue. And people definitely get in trouble all the time for dealing drugs and bringing weapons to school. Which is why both are far more common outside of school.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > What about unstructured socializing? I disagree with vivekd on many points, but I don't think that schools offer many more unstructured opportunities for socialization than their examples. They get a few minutes in the hallway, and then maybe lunch, and then extracurricular activities - which he's already suggesting anyway.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      Yes, I'm not making that argument. My argument is only that you aren't going to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons" by avoiding school -- at least not without being overbearing. I.e., if you rule out all unstructured socializing, then avoiding school might be an effective way to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons". But if you don't rule out unstructured socializing, then ruling out school isn't going to help much.

rexpop 10y ago

Among high schoolers, within the month they were surveyed: 35% drank some alcohol 21% binge drank (consuming an excessive amount) 22% rode in someone’s car who’d been drinking 10% drove after drinking The stats show that marijuana use is rampant: 35.1% of 12th graders have smoked pot in the past year 21.3% of 12th graders have smoked pot in the last 30 days 16.6% of 10th graders have smoked pot in the last 30 days 6% of 12th graders say they use marijuana every day 81% of 12th graders say it would be easy to get marijuana Only 32% of 12th graders feel that regular marijuana use is harmful — https://www.teenrehabcenter.org/resources/high-school-drug-use/ https://www.teenrehabcenter.org/resources/high-school-drug-u... ...checks out.

throwaway729 10y ago
No one is denying that students experiment with sex and drugs. Rather, the observation is that these things happen mostly outside of school, so avoiding schools isn't an effective way of avoiding this things. The link between school and these activities is, IMO, largely specious. Or at the very least completely unsubstantiated by evidence. Or are you seriously suggesting that kids are binge drinking and lighting up in between history and chemistry? Basically, vivek's argument is that by not sending your kids to school you avoid all of these behaviors. But these behaviors are far more common outside of school that within school. Home schooling doesn't replace effective parenting, and sending your kdis to a school doesn't preclude effective parenting. Finally, I think it's worth asking so what?! to a lot of your statistics. Particularly the "drank some alcohol" and "smoked pot in the last 30 days" statistics. These things aren't a priori bad, and drinking at that age isn't even illegal in a lot of developed countries (and even in some places in the US, under adult supervision).
throwaway729 10y ago
Also, I REALLY hate that link you posted. It's my observation that this sort of propaganda does far more harm than good. Kids are smart. Claims that "marijuana and drinking are bad" tend to only have the effect of discrediting the speaker. Those claims are mostly specious, and kids know how to use Google. Citing something like "68% of 12th graders have tried alcohol" in a page decrying substance abuse makes one look like a scare mongering idiot. Seriously, these are 18 year olds -- that number is almost certainly close to 100% in a lot of developed countries. But kids are also stupid. If you go on to tell them "binge drinking is bad, avoid it" or "prolonged marijuana use really can cause serious harm", they'll extrapolate that you're BSing them about that too. Basically, scare mongering about any drug use only has the effect of making it far harder to warn kids about actual dangers.