128 students suspended at Ind. school

wrote in message
ups.com...
Fine. But in that case it's problem that has no solution. These kids
are doomed. Their parents can't afford school supplies and don't have
the ability to plan ahead to save for them. The entire family is too
proud to ask for help, so the school district or local charities cannot
provide the supplies. So the kid doesn't have supplies and fails, NOT
because he's marked tardy when he goes to his locker, but because he is
not able to complete the assignments without writing implements and
paper.

So ... besides having the district provide all supplies free of charge
for all students (which was never the case when I was student, and
isn't the case now [though kids today do seem to be expected to provide
MORE than we were as kids ... we never had to bring our own tissues or
classroom scissors, but we did have to bring paper and pens/pencils and
protractors and [in high school] calculators), what do you suggest for
these kids?

Good point.

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
. ..

"Tori M" wrote in message
...
Weird. Why would they demand specific brands? Here it's just a
generic list. Such and so many pens. Such and so many notebooks. Such
and so many packets of loose-leaf paper, and so on. Sometimes I'd buy
the cheapest available (looseleaf paper is looseleaf paper!), sometimes
I'd spend a bit more for quality. (Roseart crayons suck, and papermate
pens leak.)

We get some for $1 at Save a lot.. there is 6 packs of 8.. I let Xavier
use
them while I do school with Bonnie.. I have no idea where they go between
days. Bonnie gets Crayola.. we are just missing the Brown :P I dont
understand the name brand thing either.. isnt a binder just a binder? I
can
understand no Velcro and such but not the weird requests.. My friend Dena
said she sent her son to school with the wrong brand of scissors and they
did not let him do art that year.

Excluding the child was wrong, however, there are a few areas where brand
names matter-as mentioned, few crayon brands stack up to crayola,
especially
in the early years when children are learning colors and need a crayon
that
colors the shade it's labeled-a brown which colors sort of purply-grey
isn't
a good thing for a 5 yr old. Fiskars scissors are much, much easier to cut
with, and therefore avoid a lot of frustrations for young learners.
I think I got Bonnie Fiskars on accident.. lol.. it they are I would much
rather borrow a pair of the old fashioned metal ones to get her used to
cutting.. She can cut the hair off her head but not paper :-/ I agree about
the Crayola.. and even the instraments. If it doesnt sound right there is
no point.. but what about folders and notebooks? Some of the classes are
asking for the most expensive binders and not accepting the lower priced
ones. That is just weird to me.

Tori

Nan wrote:
SNIP

Knock yourself out, sister.

Let's see if we get this straight. (i) I once accused you of changing
your story. You disagreed. I have no recollection, but based on your
vehemence, I also have no doubt that your recollection here is correct
(except that I'm equally certain I would not have made such a statement
unless I at least believed it to be true); (ii) I made a similar
statement relating solely to Nimue's denial that NYC schools could
institute policies requiring students to wear uniforms (she of course
has been entirely consistent on her other point that sending kids home
is not an appropriate disciplinary measure). Therefore, I *habitually*
accuse people of changing stories. Well, you know I've done it twice.
You really wouldn't call that habitual. It might be nasty if you did
call it habitual, but you didn't. Well, OK, you did, but its really my
fault because I provoked you. (iii) You're SURE that I'm wrong about
Nimue. After all, I was (according to you) wrong about you. You can't
tell me why I'm wrong about Nimue; I just must be, because I'm wrong
about you. Or you can, but you're not going to. (iv) Moreover, you
haven't accused me of *falsely* accusing either you or Nimue. All
you've said is that I've accused you, and those accusations are false.
But that doesn't mean that you're accusing me of making false
accusations -- just accusations that are false.

Barbara

"Barbara" wrote in message
oups.com...
haven't accused me of *falsely* accusing either you or Nimue. All
you've said is that I've accused you, and those accusations are false.
But that doesn't mean that you're accusing me of making false
accusations -- just accusations that are false.

LOL.

In article , Donna Metler says...


"Jen" wrote in message
...

"Barbara" wrote in message
ups.com...


No, I have said that student dress isn't a big issue with me. I never
said
I don't care about the rules. I said I would like to change the
punishment
for dress code violations because I don't want kids missing class.

Its not that I disagree with you on this point. Its that it presents a
conundrum. Girl A comes to school in an outfit that clearly violates
dress code -- let's say a super-short skirt and tank top. She gets
detention. But not everyone who sees her that day *knows* that she got
detention; no one is going to make her carry a sign that says *I
violated dress code and now I'm stuck in detention* (Nor should they
....)
So what?! When other kids do things against the rules, not all of them
know
if they got detention or not. The kids aren't all going to say *Wow, lets
do it too then*. Kids have some sense too.
Uh, not necessarily. That works ONLY when the other students are offended by
the behavior and apply social sanctions. Most students won't start fighting
if they knew that they wouldn't get suspended if they did it, but because in
most neighborhoods, fighting is socially unacceptable.

However, wearing a "cool" shirt or whatever the current trend is IS
something desireable to do. Therefore, if students see one person "getting
away with it", which wearing the shirt all day qualifies as in the minds of
everyone else in the school, a few more will push the envelope. And the more
students who push the envelope, the easier it is to ignore borderline cases
because any disciplinary action requires extra work on the part of the
teacher.

Unfortunately, what happens then is that the borderline has shifted, and
when a student really does come in something completely unacceptable-which,
eventually, some "fool dude" (as my dad is wont to call them) will push the
limits dramatically-and then, SINCE the rules haven't been enforced equally,
there is no good way to enforce it for this one case without raising all
sorts of questions of fairness, discrimination, and similar issues. And
believe me, the kid who pushes the limits for the sake of pushing the limits
beyond what is the social norm is also the one who will be the schoolhouse
lawyer and raise every issue in the book, and will probably have parents who
are supportive of this.


Yep. Which is why for this kind of thing, it makes sense to have some standard
that's very clear, and that's an advantage of school uniforms. It takes that
whole big point of contention away.

Failing that, then you get the "fingertip" or "2 inches above kneecap" rules.
Which by their very nature will impact some kids a little more than others (me,
being very tall, always ended up with a very conservative skirt length with the
2-inches-above-knee rule). But it's clear, and frankly I don't see taller girls
or girls with longer arms w.r.t. their body having to go a little more
conservative because of it being a really big deal - because *whatever* you do,
some folks will grouse about it. So you just got to accept some grousing.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

Exactly. There's no point in debating something that's purely a
matter of opinion. I'm not going to waste my breath trying to convince
everyone that green really is the best color.

Why not? you would be right :P

Tori

Barbara wrote:


Its difficult to comprehend the extent of poverty in even so-called
first-world countries. I recall a friend working on a legal aid case.
The client lived in an SRO (at least he wasn't homeless) with no access
to a kitchen or means to cook. He testified that he ate lunch most
days and Dunkin Donuts or another inexpensive fast food place. The ALJ
kept asking where he ate his other meals. The guy just didn't get it.
There WERE no other meals. That's all he could afford each day -- a
cheap junkie lunch. That guy didn't have kids, but if he had, there
might not have BEEN an extra dime each week.

But if he had kids there would have been food stamps. The kids would
have gotten free breakfasts and lunches at school. The elementary
school where Shaina went offered this summer, lunches, free of charge,
no questions asked, for any family that walked through the door. (I
don't think they served adults alone, but adults with kids were
welcome.) There is also a homeless shelter that offers meals several
days a week, and several food pantries (that have food that doesn't
necessarily have to be cooked) .A couple of years ago (don't know if
it's still going on) a local charity send a 'breakfast truck' all
summer to the public housing district to provide breakfast for the kids
who normally got free breakfasts at school, but didn't have access to
it over the summer.

This isn't unique. School districts face the challenge not only of the
working poor or the benefits-receiving poor, but of people who are
homeless, kids whose parents don't give a damn, whose parents are
addicts. Those kids deserve a chance as well.

Indeed they do. But at some point SOMEONE in the family has to take
some sort of responsibility to seeing that they get it. I dunno ...
maybe I'm elitist and horrible, but I think that people have to take
some responsibility for themselves and, if they are parents, for their
children. If you can't afford to feed your kids, you do whatever it
takes (within legal bounds) to see that they get food. If you can't
afford school supplies, you do whatever it takes to see that your kids
get school supplies, to allow them the chance for a better life than
you are able to give them now. "Oh, poor me ... life's just too hard
...." just doesn't cut it. (There are some posts about 300 posts up the
thread about the importance of having HIGH expectations for low SES
students. It applies to adults too.) You HAVE to think past today's
electric bill, because next month there's going to be another one. And,
in this case, you know your kids go to school. You know they need
decent clothes and basic supplies. So you use a little initiative to
look ahead so, come August, you have a few bucks put aside to provide
them. (Or, if you really can't do that, you swallow your pride and ask
for help, or at least accept it when it's offered. There is plenty of
help available. ) In Indiana you have to apply for free/reduced cost
lunches. You have to apply for the textbook fees to be waived.
Presumably the low income families are able to do that. Is it so much
harder to do what's needed to get school supplies?)

If you don't have bootstraps to pull yourself up on, be sure that
someone knows about it, so they can give you the boots!

There are all kinds of other problems. AS I mentioned, far too many --
across all economic boundaries -- simply do not care. You're assuming
that parents have the skills to plan for the future. Again, many
don't. Finally, there's the economic paradox of many poor inner-city
neighborhoods. Big box stores generally don't open there. You're
talking about prices of goods at WalMart, KMart, Target. There is no
WalMart in NYC. There are a few KMarts, but AFAIK they're not in the
porest areas. So you wind up with a paradox of the poorest people
sometimes paying MORE for items.

So maybe those schools should buy the stuff in bulk, and sell it, at
cost, to the students? (And again, those students who can't afford it,
as with the text book fees in Indiana, can apply for an exemption.)

Shaina's high school is mostly working to middle class. (We live in a
moderate sized college town which does have comparatively few REALLY
poor people.) The high school I attended 30 years ago had plenty of
inner city kids, along with a bunch of middle class students. And, so
far as I know, even the poor kids managed to get necessary school
supplies.

Naomi

wrote in message
oups.com...

children. If you can't afford to feed your kids, you do whatever it
takes (within legal bounds) to see that they get food.

Actually, in some situations, I think it's okay to break the law for food.
For instance, our paper ran a story about the mass starvations in North
Korea. The people who survived were the ones who broke the law by growing
their own food or some other such illegal methods. The ones who tried to
subsist within the boundaries of the law were the first to die. I don't
think that's a problem within the U.S., though. There is malnourishment,
but death by starvation because of a lack of funds is unheard of.

toypup wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

children. If you can't afford to feed your kids, you do whatever it
takes (within legal bounds) to see that they get food.

Actually, in some situations, I think it's okay to break the law for food.
For instance, our paper ran a story about the mass starvations in North
Korea. The people who survived were the ones who broke the law by growing
their own food or some other such illegal methods. The ones who tried to
subsist within the boundaries of the law were the first to die. I don't
think that's a problem within the U.S., though. There is malnourishment,
but death by starvation because of a lack of funds is unheard of.

Well yeah, I was looking at the U.S. Nobody here should have to steal
from Krogers to feed their children. (And thinking about the guy who
eats at Dunkin' Donuts every day because he doesn't have a kitchen ...
maybe he would do better to shell out for a can opener? Restaurant
food, even cheap junk fast food, is ALWAYS more expensive than grocery
store (or food panty) food. Tuna or peanut butter or cold canned beans
and bread might not taste as good as donuts and coffee, but they're a
damned sight healthier, and probably cheaper.

Naomi

wrote in message
oups.com...
Well yeah, I was looking at the U.S. Nobody here should have to steal
from Krogers to feed their children. (And thinking about the guy who
eats at Dunkin' Donuts every day because he doesn't have a kitchen ...
maybe he would do better to shell out for a can opener? Restaurant
food, even cheap junk fast food, is ALWAYS more expensive than grocery
store (or food panty) food. Tuna or peanut butter or cold canned beans
and bread might not taste as good as donuts and coffee, but they're a
damned sight healthier, and probably cheaper.

You don't even need a can opener nowadays. The cans have pop tops and tuna
comes in bags or have pop tops. But yeah, he could buy supermarket food
cheap.

Anyway, one of our classes on homeless people had a bunch of them come to
tell us their stories. One of them said they don't need food. He was very
honest about it. There were plenty of places they could get free meals and
he named them all off and where he could get the best food. None of the
other homeless disagreed with him. This could vary by community, but
communities with high homeless rates tend to have lots of services for the
homeless, as well.