<p>Our alternative school is for anyone who is suspended for drugs, alcohol, or fighting. The school has a ratio of 1 teacher/3 students. In addition, there are counselors on staff. Students work with teachers to maintain progress in schoolwork. The staff want the students to return to their regular schools as quickly as possible and they work with the teachers at the student’s homeschool to maintain continuity of coursework. The students must attend daily counseling. The school has parent-teacher conferences every few weeks that a parent must attend.</p>
<p>So this disciplinary action seems very fair to me. Evidently the courts were not involved. These kids were lucky! If they toe the line, I suspect they will return to their regular school quickly. At my high school I would have been expelled for any drug or alcohol usage on school grounds or on a field trip.</p>
<p>I just wanted to add some information on our alternative school. A young man from my cub scout pack was sent there in eighth grade because he received a year’s suspension for fighting. He had been diagnosed with ADD, was on medication and was getting weekly counseling after school but he was unable to control his impulsive behavior. He did extremely well in classes because he was so bright. Unfortunately he broke another student’s nose and was suspended.</p>
<p>The alternative school wove coursework, group therapy and individual counseling into his daily schedule. Because the student/teacher ratio was so good, he raced through his studies. Because he had daily therapy with experienced counselors, he was able to make a huge amount of progress in controlling his impulses. His parents were devastated when he was sent to the school but they faithfully attending every conference and implemented the school’s recommended behavior mod plan at home.</p>
<p>He “graduated” from the alternative school after a year and entered a regular high school in mid ninth grade. A few months ago, I read in the paper he had made the dean’s list at his college!</p>
<p>I guess my point is that alternative schools are not always holding pens for hopeless kids. They can be outstanding schools that really turn kids around.</p>
<p>From the info on the linked site, it sounds to me like these kids will get the assistance they need. Whether they take it and use it to their advantage or not will be their (and their parents’) decision.</p>
<p>^^ And we should always believe what we read on a website. What “assistance they need”. They broke a big rule- we don’t know that they are drug addicts.</p>
<p>As someone who’s junior and senior HS indulgences continued into full blown addiction, I wonder if I’d gotten help earlier if I’d gotten caught and a heavy penalty back in JH or HS.</p>
<p>IMO–for many of us, the “not a really big deal, they all do it attitude” by parents and a large segment of society when we haven’t even reached college age is part of enabling us (and candidly our parents) to not face that we have a real problem.</p>
<p>Whether or not the students at issues are already “addicts,” they stepped in it, now they need to deal with the situation they have created. Mom and Dad to the rescue isn’t the proper response IMO.</p>
<p>I wonder how many of you “they knew the rules” and “pay the consequences” parents here had a drink before age 21 in college, and on college grounds at that! Is that not breaking a rule as well? What should have been YOUR consequence? Oh, that’s right, you didn’t get caught.</p>
<p>^^ lol - drinking age was 18 when I went to college. Boy am I old…
Hey, I tell my kids to pay close attention to the rules. I let them know they can get in deep trouble for taking risks. But some of these rules are VERY stupid IMO, and I certainly admit that to them too. No use pretending I agree. For example, you can get in big trouble for just being with underage drinkers in a college dorm room. Don’t have to drink a drop. Stupid. I would fight it.
Now, everyone knows smoking pot can mean trouble. These kids took a risk. If it’s just 60 days in the alternative program, doesn’t seem so harsh. One year seems crazy to me. though. I have a right to use my barometer in deciding whether or not to fight for my kids. I don’t see it as black and white, but I’m no pushover, “everything goes” type either. I think each individual case needs to be reviewed on it’s own merits. And I don’t think we really know the full story on this one…impossible from a brief article.</p>
It was 18 when I was in college too. Also, that’s one of those “are you willing to pay the consequence” things. I’m pretty sure one of mine got an MIP ticket in college. But he knew better than to try and get out of it, or have us get him a lawyer. He paid the fine. Consequence was worth it. Driving while intoxicated would have a much, much steeper consequence which they should not be willing to pay so they don’t do it.</p>
<p>When we moved our son into his freshman dorm several years ago at the Ivy he attends, I did not meet one student who wasn’t showing off his or her fake ID. It was amazing. I had no idea that it was the rule rather than the exception. Most use them without consequence until they actually turn 21. Occasionally a kid is in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets arrested and has some big consequences.</p>
<p>GA2012mom-your last sentence sums it up–many don’t get caught! Does that excuse the behavior-NO, but they did get caught and there are consequences for the actions. Perhaps the parents can work with the school to change the punishment for future students if they think the sentence is too stiff. But, at this point, have to agree with other posters that they must have known the consequence for this up front-we always had to sign off on a code of conduct all thru HS and even Elem School. Even our student living in college dorm has had to sign off on a code of conduct. Does the punishment fit the crime–probably not, but the rules were in place and up front. And, as I mentioned earlier, maybe the parents/students can now be pro-active about changing the punishment TO fit the crime, if necessary.</p>
<p>There was a story in the news a few yrs back about a kid who was having a severe asthma attack at school, and didnt have their inhaler with them. Another student who also had asthma had her inhaler, and let the seriously struggling student use it. The second student got suspended (dont recall for how long) for having and sharing a prescribed medication. Does the punishment always fit the crime?</p>
<p>Zero tolerance is not a good policy in the majority of cases, because things are rarely ever that cut-and-dry. I was suspended a few times in high school for fighting. I have never started a fight in my life, and I doubt I will. But zero tolerance means that a student has to do their best to block or run away when another person starts throwing haymakers at his head. If you do anything more than that, policy gives you the same punishment and same statement in your record as the instigator. Also, another foolish part of the policy is that it distinguishes between striking with an open palm and a closed fist- you can hurt someone pretty bad with either.</p>
<p>I will never let someone attack me. If you take a swing at me, I will defend myself with extreme prejudice. I was fortunate enough to be on good terms with a few administrators, but zero tolerance and mandatory sentences don’t take into account the fact that every situation is different.</p>
<p>If not zero tolerance, then what?? In this case, the parents who complain the longest/loudest or who ‘knows somebody’ or who have discretionary income enough to hire a lawyer will get results for their kid whereas the kid with parents who are less ‘involved’ or have a more modest income will have the book thrown at him. The kid who’s high-profile, say the Student Council president, won’t get the same consequence as the uninvolved loner. The student who isn’t college-bound will be forced to run the gauntlet whereas the Ivy-bound kid will merely have his hands slapped. Seems to me zero-tolerance is the only way to be equitable~ </p>
<p>I’m not heartless and haven’t had perfect kids, but I’ve tried my darnedest to teach them responsibility–that behavior results in consequence, like it or not…Sorry, but smoking weed at a school function is a pretty serious offense so it follows that a pretty serious consequence should follow. Maybe zero tolerance isn’t perfect–doesn’t work in every case, but if not that…??</p>
<p>“Zero tolerance is not a good policy in the majority of cases, because things are rarely ever that cut-and-dry.”</p>
<p>But it sure is in this case. The result otherwise would have been that the potheads who don’t get invited to prestigious multi-school events would end up at the ALC (and perhaps criminally charged), and the potheads who smoked on the roof of the hotel would get a slap on the wrist (which they may in this case, if they only have to attend the ALC for 60 dyas.)</p>
<p>I’d certainly like to think that setting an example with these kids will work, but I’ve learned over the years, that it doesn’t.</p>
<p>We (like most people here) have had kids from our daughters’ high school killed in car wrecks where alcohol and drugs have been involved. You’d think the whole class was killed by the remaining students’ reactions and promises to honor their lost ones by abstaining for the rest of their lives, but within a couple of months, most of them are drowning their sorrows and griefs in alcohol and drugs, again.</p>
<p>Well yeah, that was sarcasm in my post. And you can’t even make the case that these kids were screwing up their lives with the pot. Other than that it’s against the rules, there’s not much inherently bad with what they did.</p>
<p>Yea, I know you were being sarcastic, but there are people who really believe that scaring the crap out of kids will work. Who knows, maybe there are some kids for whom it would work; I don’t know any.</p>