We're from the government and we're here to help....

since you want to be exact he we punished for a alleged pattern of mis behavior, which the board will not talk about..

the boss sent out a letter asserting that we should trust that the facts were found and that they did the right thing. no way

at the moment my brain cant get beyond what appears to be the fact that the order to pass out this screening was an illegal order because it violated district policy.

The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) is a federal law that affords certain rights to parents of minor students with regard to surveys that ask questions of a personal nature. Briefly, the law requires that schools obtain written consent from parents before minor students are required to participate in any U.S. Department of Education funded survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning the following areas:

Political affiliations;
Mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student and his/her family;
Sex behavior and attitudes;
Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior;
Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;
Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers;
Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student's parent*; or
Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program.)
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 contains a major amendment to PPRA that gives parents more rights with regard to the surveying of minor students, the collection of information from students for marketing purposes, and certain non-emergency medical examinations. In addition, an eight category of information (*) was added to the law.

You may read more about the specific changes to the law by selecting here.

The Department will be updating the PPRA regulations to reflect these changes.

A number of Edmonds school kids were recently suspended for having Nerf guns at school.
That's not surprising considering the school's "zero tolerance" policy on toy guns, but what is surprising is that the teacher allegedly told the kids it was okay to have the guns.
Now the kids' parents want to know why their children were punished if the teacher gave permission for the guns.
The incident happened last Friday before class at Chase Lake Elementary School.
A sixth grade boy brought a number of the guns, which shoot small foam projectiles, to school for a class probability project. The kids were going to shoot the guns 100 times to see what happens.
The project was allegedly approved by the teacher. But the 12-year-old boys, being what they are, decided to "try out" the guns before the school doors opened.
"So he took them out and of course -- Nerf gun -- they started testing how far they would shoot," said parent Shannon Shumard.
Neither Shumard's sixth grade son nor her fourth grade daughter brought the Nerf guns to school, but because they participated, both were suspended for a day. Because of the suspensions, neither child will be able to take a high school algebra class or serve on the student council.
"They are both very upset," Shumard said. "I mean, it's a day suspension, but it's a permanent on their record."
Stacey Leidholm's son, who she said has straight As, received the same punishment.
"I do understand that they definitely need consequences, but not that harsh of a consequence," she said.
The Edmonds School District confirms that an incident at Chase Lake occurred, but won't talk specifics. In general, they say with toy or facsimile guns, discipline is handed out at the discretion of the principal.
"Again, it's a matter of SAFETY! and it's of the utmost importance. So even if it's a toy, we take it seriously," said school district spokeswoman Amanda Ralston.


Read more: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Edmonds-students-suspended-for-using-Nerf-gun-at-school-210013811.html#ixzz2VE3lzaSQ

High school students at Seattle’s Center School, on the eve of graduation for some, are getting a crash course in citizenship and bureaucracy behavior. They are organizing to try to head off the pending, involuntary transfer of teacher Jon Greenberg because of his popular Citizenship and Social Justice course.

Greenberg was investigated by Seattle Public Schools earlier this year after the family of one student complained about the atmosphere in his classroom. The class has been known for rigorous reading as well as blunt discussion that draws out students’ experience with racism and its impact on their lives.

“He is being transferred involuntarily to Hamilton Middle School effective at the end of the year, which means an end to the Citizenship and Social Justice curriculum at Center,” said Zak Meyer, a senior at the school, himself an Eagle Scout and wheelchair athlete.

“We’re trying to stop the transfer,” said Meyer. ”We’re reaching out to any group that will support us.”

The students intend to meet Tuesday and carry their cause to the Seattle School Board at its meeting on Wednesday afternoon. “A lot of kids come here for this curriculum: It has been honored by the mayor and by the city,” said Meyer.

The issue has not put Seattle Public Schools in a favorable light, but has put under the light a self-protective bureaucracy that quakes at a single complainant … and doesn’t seek insider opinion from those in the classroom doing the learning.

District headquarters would not confirm plans to transfer Greenberg, but said in a statement — referring to him inaccurately as “Center School Principal John Greenberg” — that: “While the school district doesn’t comment on open personnel matters, we can say that the Superintendent is now considering the appropriate action to be taken as a result of this finding.”

Andrew Lewis, a Seattle political activist and Center School graduate, now studying on a fellowship in Britain, e-mailed the opinion: ”I am absolutely shocked by this development. There is no justice.”

Center School, based at the Seattle Center, is an alternative, arts-intensive high school known for a very high level of college placement. Its official guiding motto is to “empower and inspire” students, in study, to “positively impact the world.”

Citizenship and Social Justice has discussed race, gender and class in America, delving into such writings as “Native Son” by Richard Wright and the speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Any student feeling uncomfortable was told he/she could step out of the classroom at any time and was welcome to speak with Greenberg.

Seattle Public Schools received a complaint from one family. Its human resources department launched an investigation, cut off a portion of the class dealing with race, and found that the way the race unit of the class was taught “did create an intimidating environment for a student.”

Center School students vociferously disagreed, gathered 600 signatures on a petition, and protested that the District never bothered to speak with students in the class.

Superintendent Jose Banda then reinstated “Citizenship and Social Justice” but directed it be “taught in a non-threatening manner” with warnings ahead of time whenever classroom activities are likely to cause a “high degree of emotion.” Blunt talk about students’ racial experiences was curbed.

The same family then complained a second time.

“An investigation into that complaint concluded that while Mr. Greenberg did not retaliate against the complainant, he did violate the District’s Harassment, Intimidation or Bullying Policy by allowing students to distribute a petition during class time when the complainant is in the class.”

Greenberg has not sought publicity. Apparently, he is to be punished as well as transferred. Zak Meyer argued Monday that the teacher is being punished for doing a first-rate job — preparing students for critical thinking in college, and getting them talking to each other about the world they will inherit.

“We’ve been diving into stuff that I will be dealing with in my freshman year of college, and getting deeply into issues of our society,” said Meyer. “I am a minority in that I have a disability. The course preaches tolerance of all backgrounds. It opens the world to me, not just from my point of view but in understanding the views of others.

“Kids I’ve known for four years, in hearing them talk about race, telling the class ‘I deal with this on a daily basis.’ I didn’t know this about them.”

Both Meyer and Andrew Lewis noted recent turnover in Center School faculty, notably the departure of science teachers.

The removal of Greenberg from Center School “helps no one,” Meyer argued. It takes away an outstanding teacher at a time when we have lost 40 percent of our faculty. And, from the standpoint of encouraging students to be challenged in the classroom, it’s a chilling step.”

If you had something, like a meal special, that you were trying out at your restaurant, and one that you had worked on for a long time and were quite proud of, and one of the patrons asked one of your waiters if it was safe to eat, because he was concerned about the mushrooms in it, and the waiter answered, "Well, I wouldn't eat that stuff" and, "It's safer not to eat anything in here that could possibly make you ill," how would you deal with that employee?

note: i present this information in spite of the fact that it weakens my argument that the US government is working to run over people.

so what has this school taught its students? the answer is not for the squeamish!

What do you think of this type of survey?

Do you think the teacher deserved the reprimand?

Is that you paraphrasing what you can envision a school board member saying (I think it is), or is it an actual quote?

Being asked, on the other hand, allows the individual the option of refusing the request--they can protect their privacy, and no invasion takes place.

identify, and then reach out to

You're so focused on an "audience" and making your "case" that you forget that most of the time.

Hopefully, someone would give him a job teaching ethics instead of waiting tables. Obviously this waiter knows the difference between right (protecting people) and wrong (harming them just to make a buck).

Quote:

identify, and then reach out to

I think that's exactly the issue here. Outside of observation and relationships, I'm not sure that's appropriate.

Quote:

You're so focused on an "audience" and making your "case" that you forget that most of the time.

Excellent comment. We all fall into that trap. Some stay there exclusively.

IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:

identify, and then reach out to

I think that's exactly the issue here. Outside of observation and relationships, I'm not sure that's appropriate.

But the school has a relationship with its students: It is their caretaker during the hours they're attending it. How is it incongruent with this relationship that the school identify problems and reach out to the students who have them?

if there was no programed communication that this screen was voluntary and explaination on what it was intended to accomplish then the authorities were negligent