Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you advocating for no government? Anarchy? I thought the RWs, TPers and RP supporters favored state and local govt, not federal govt. A school district is LOCAL government.
Do not believe everything you read in a newspaper.
No, the principal of every individual school should not make the policy for his/her individual school. These policies are made by the school board, usually with input from the Health Services department. The fact that med poicies are similar from district to district tells me there is some sort of school health advisory group making recommendations.
We don't need school boards. Schools should be ran like businesses. Each school should have a parental counsel elected from the parents of students in that school and a student represenative elected from the student body that has only the jobs of hiring the Principal and giving him the annual budget. The Principal should then operate the school, hire and fire teachers, janitors, staff and decide what policies and procedures the school will follow. He should be given a virtual free hand at running the school and, when his or her contract comes up, the parental counsel would decide if the results are good enough to renew the contract for another term.
We don't need school boards. Schools should be ran like businesses. Each school should have a parental counsel elected from the parents of students in that school and a student represenative elected from the student body that has only the jobs of hiring the Principal and giving him the annual budget. The Principal should then operate the school, hire and fire teachers, janitors, staff and decide what policies and procedures the school will follow. He should be given a virtual free hand at running the school and, when his or her contract comes up, the parental counsel would decide if the results are good enough to renew the contract for another term.
Oh, for crying out loud! I don't think you have any experience in education. A lot of charter schools are run like that, and most of them fail.
Oh, for crying out loud! I don't think you have any experience in education. A lot of charter schools are run like that, and most of them fail.
Lol, Ohio is the poster child for failure of the charter school experiment. As one school after another go belly up the GOP controlled administration keeps giving the masters new charters. One thing Ohio's experiment has proven is failure breeds name changes.
Seems it is easy to be a charter, but difficult being good at education.
When I give an explanation it is tacit approval or an excuse....when you give an explanation it is.....what? Funny how your "rules" don't apply to yourself.
You seem to be experiencing a problem with the concept of nuance and implication. So let me define this in different language. "Explanations offer a couple of subtle, indirect insights depending on motive for offering them. They can simply serve in the effort to provide information to define an issue, i.e. ... the math teacher explained the formula for determining the mass of the object to his students. There is no "side being taken" because there is no side to take in such a situation. On the other hand, if someone like you steps in to offer an explanation for why this math teacher had sex with several of his underage students, one can see that you are indeed indirectly condoning that behavior by offering excuses.
In another example .... let's say you have a relative that robbed a bank. The news media interviews you and you "explain" that your bank robbing relative is a drug addict, and that's why he robs banks to pay for his drugs. This explanation does not infer a sympathetic disposition on your part ... however, if you were to say "he has been unemployed for a year .. and he's been searching for work unsuccessfully .. and he has 6 children at home to feed" ... one can readily see that you are indeed offering a sympathetic "excuse" for his behavior, or, tacit approval.
In the case we've been debating .. your motive was far less nuanced, since you DIRECTLY attempted to deflect the responsibility for the incident away from the nurse and other school officials onto the parents. Your position was clear ... the school was understandably reacting, and the failure to provide the written consent was the fault of the parent. That is "CONDONING" the actions of the school. I, on the other hand, say that the school behaved in a manner showing flagrant disregard for the welfare of the student, and should be facing criminal charges of reckless endangerment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
Liberals are not the only ones guilty of Nannyism....what do you call all of the laws they are trying to put in place forcing women to have unnecessary ultrasounds, counseling, and waiting periods before they are allowed to have an abortion they decided to have? Is that not the government interfering in personal responsibility? Government knows what's best?
No, this is not what a reasonable person would define as "nannyism", but is an honorable effort to reduce the Million plus babies being killed annually ... which in a less twisted version of reality, has always been seen as against the law ... i.e. the killing of innocent human beings. That an element of our society has redefined this killing as a right to choose, is an overt deception, as well as a direct assault on the sanctity of human life. No one has ever possessed the legitimate right to kill innocents, therefore there is no right to make such a choice in the first place, and therefore no "nannyism" involved in trying to prevent it. Would you consider laws against bank robbery or murder as "nannyism" or misconstrue them as interference in personal responsibility? I rational person would not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
And please....don't try to contend that liberals are the only ones who file frivolous law suits.
I never meant to insinuate such a thing, in fact, I believe that there are very few "absolutes" in the world, and I strive to avoid absolutes, since more often than not, there are exceptions to most every rule. That said, liberals are indeed the most flagrant and frequent of the offenders for petitioning for new laws, and bans, and restrictions and litigation. One of the many prime examples is the rather frivolous nature of the liberal push to have "In God We Trust" removed from the dollar bill. Given the severe problems with our nation's currency today, not only are such efforts the epitome of "frivolous", but could indeed be labeled "felonious" stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
Hmmm.....wasn't this student's medication withheld because they did not have the proper parental consent form signed for that year? On the one hand you want to require parental consent and then on the other hand you are OK with authorities ignoring the requirement.
Again, your difficulty with rather obvious nuance rears it's ugly head. The student in question already had the implied consent of the parents because they possessed a "prescribed" medication in their name, issued by their doctor for an ongoing and known medical condition that required that medication. That prescription was indeed the property of the student .... it was wrongly "confiscated" by school officials and denied to the student NOT because there was any legitimate perception of a lack of parental consent ... but only because of an inadequacy of administrative requirements, arbitrarily imposed by the school, and subsequently regarded as more important than the child's well being.
On the other hand, the issue in California is a direct action to bypass the authority of the parents by allowing a minor to give medical consent for the administration of a vaccine which many parents object to being given their kids due to the many adverse reactions, some life threatening, being reported.
So these two issues which you're trying to associate as some form of "hypocrisy" on my part is simply another example of how far off into left field you really are. The actions of the two school jurisdictions represent the hypocrisy .... the one school denying a student HIS medication that his parents would OBVIOUSLY want him to have ... and the other, attempting to medicate students against the wishes of their parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
Yes....I will do what it takes to protect myself from lawsuits.....ya know.....personal responsibility.....like being responsible for what I allow to happen on MY PROPERTY.
Perhaps I should have just asked Grandpa if he was a conservative....then I wouldn't have had to worry about a lawsuit. LMAO
Or maybe you could take a few moments to investigate the horrific history of Child Protective Services, including the fact that children are exponentially in far more danger under CPS custody ... then you might discover what a despicable thing you did to threaten your neighbor in such a thoughtless manner.
PS: It's really not a laughing matter. It really constitutes good cause for running your rear end out of the neighborhood.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 05-26-2012 at 01:02 PM..
Are you advocating for no government? Anarchy? I thought the RWs, TPers and RP supporters favored state and local govt, not federal govt. A school district is LOCAL government.
Do not believe everything you read in a newspaper.
No, the principal of every individual school should not make the policy for his/her individual school. These policies are made by the school board, usually with input from the Health Services department. The fact that med poicies are similar from district to district tells me there is some sort of school health advisory group making recommendations.
Quite the distortion there ... having no real basis in truth or reality.
The reality is, decade to decade, from the 1950's forward, little by little, local community authority regarding decisions of how their children are to be educated, including curricula (one of the more important elements, no?) has been countermanded by federally imposed guidelines. Now that fact is indisputable, so don't bother challenging that, you'll just make yourself sound foolish.
You can debate the necessity and value of that course if you like ... but the results speak for themselves. We now spend more money on education than anyone else in the world ... yet we are dropping like a stone in the measure of literacy among developed nations.
The reason for this is clear .... we no longer "educate". We "indoctrinate" our young people with propaganda in all it's many forms, covering virtually every aspect of their time in school ... from manipulating their consciousness and beliefs on social issues ... to filling their heads with pseudo-scientific dogma .... and the results are clearly following the pattern .... dumb ..... dumber ..... dumbest ...
So forget your ideological beliefs ... forget the distortions ... let's just look at results. And the results are not pretty ... they actually demand a radical rethinking ... and certainly do not justify more of the same.
Lol, Ohio is the poster child for failure of the charter school experiment. As one school after another go belly up the GOP controlled administration keeps giving the masters new charters. One thing Ohio's experiment has proven is failure breeds name changes.
Seems it is easy to be a charter, but difficult being good at education.
Some will fail and others will do well. The point is that they are locally ran directly by the people that use them and parents have a choice. The good charter schools will attract students.
Some will fail and others will do well. The point is that they are locally ran directly by the people that use them and parents have a choice. The good charter schools will attract students.
Plus much more! Charter school proponenets think that somehow schools that have stood the test of time don't know what they're doing, and a group of parents who have never run a school, or anything, in their lives, can do better.
I would not want to send my kids to a charter school that fails; what a waste of a kid's time!
In any event, if you think any charter school worth its salt, and there are a few, would be so lax about medications as some of you think should be the case, you have another think coming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
