College Confidential’s “Dean,” Sally Rubenstone, put together 25 of her best tips. So far, the "25 Tips from the Dean" eBook has helped more than 10K students choose a college, get in, and pay for it. Get your free copy: http://goo.gl/9zDJTM
I'm pretty sure that if he said he was with others but refused to name them he would be going to our local public school right now. Or, they would drug test all of his friends on "reasonable suspicion." Reiterating - I don't know that he wasn't alone, I suspect it. I'm not asking. May press the matter once the diploma is in hand.
Yeah, I really don't know the answer. I go back to the great reply by Calimex earlier: "As luck would have it, on our flight back from visiting schools I was seated next to a man who had graduated from a HADES school. He did NOT send this kids to BS precisely because of the strict disciplinary policies in which the stakes are so high for kids being caught pushing boundaries, which is what the adolescent brain is programmed to do.
He said it could really distort kids' development. That by senior year, kids at BS become extraordinarily good at managing two very distinct selves, one for adult consumption and one for peers. He said it made them absolute masters at keeping secrets and hiding things. (But that it didn't keep them for partying hard). He claimed it made them less likely to go to adults for help, too because it turned adults into the police. The stricter the policies, the more underground the kids' go with their behavior."
I hope that deans take a hard look at their policies and I think they should distinguish between relatively normal teen behavior (say, sex or heavy petting by seniors and some pot smoking/alcohol away from school) which they ALL KNOW is happening and seriously dangerous, destructive, or harmful behavior that is out of the norm (driving while drunk, assault, statutory rape). I think lumping them together as they have may actually have the consequence of making the seriously bad behavior seem normal.
Yes, it is expected. I promise you that the majority of SPS students violate this rule (have tried alcohol or pot) by the time they are seniors. The expectations simply don't mesh with reality - and that creates a dynamic where there is the real world and the pretend world.
I remember reading that Salisbury is a 1 strike and they went that route because they were having serious issues with drugs/alcohol. That was a while ago, though ... I think a major problem with one-strike is that it may encourage the school or teachers/deans to ignore an infraction because the consequences are so huge.
Yes, it is Loomis (not trying to hide that, I just don't want this to be a rag on Loomis). 2 chance schools means that they are not expelled until the 2nd strike. It doesn't mean there are no consequences for the first one. So for the first infraction there is a suspension (and in this case loss of RA position); if it happened again he would be expelled.
Loomis breaks infractions into 3 categories, level 1, 2, and 3. Level 1 are pretty minor, includes tobacco use. Drug or alcohol use, sex, cheating, etc. are all level 2s. You are suspended for the first level 2, expelled for the 2nd. Level 3 is something that leads to immediate expulsion - drug dealing, assault, etc. Pretty rare, though apparently a star athlete's Level 3 was overturned by the Head last year ...
Any Level 2 for drug / alcohol use means regular random drug tests for the rest of the year, and mandatory counselling.
As I said, my son was absolutely guilty of breaking a school rule and their punishment was by the books. I hate that he did it. In some ways it was a good time to have it happen, he wasn't 18, he wasn't jailed, it isn't on any record books, and in September he starts over.