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

They could have been placing themselves in jeopardy, though. If their school has a zero tolerance policy, and they admit to drug use, it could affect them adversely. Or their parents could find out.

The reference to the Fifth Amendment goes beyond only "legal jeopardy;" it's obviously intended to caution the students not to say anything that may be potentially damaging.



You're trying to split hairs, and you're looking kind of silly at this point.


Edit: Lol at echoing Mame.

Edit2: Having observed some of the stupid, political fights that organizations get into, I have to say that I'm less than convinced that this teacher did anything significantly different from the other teachers. It's more likely that he was targeted because of some other issue.

see wide spread reporting of his face pic and assertions that he is known to be non-conformist. i am with you to the extent that I bet that staff politics in the school was essential in getting him rung up by the board.

Let's get the background and reason for this survey in some perspective.

In that state, the school is obligated to show they are meeting the social/emotional needs and development of their students (SEL).

In that district, several students have committed suicide in recent years, so that was another impetus behind the need for this survey. Apparently, the serious difficulties of those students had not been recognized by teachers or staff at the school.

Using surveys is one way of identifying those student social/emotional needs and issues, and, by repeating the surveys each year, the effectiveness of the school's interventions with students can be assessed. This was the first year the Batavia district used this particular survey which was purchased from Multi-Health Systems Inc. Only a few of the questions related to alcohol and drug use. Asking about such use might help to indicate a student's problems.

Parents were e-mailed regarding the survey and were told they could opt out, provided they responded by a certain date.

The survey was not anonymous in order to identify those students who might need supportive services. Such at risk students, who took the survey in April, have already been seen by counselors, social workers, etc.

So the intention of the survey was to provide benefits to the students, to do something good for them, both in terms of improving SEL at the high school, and in terms of identifying those students who might be in need of support services.

I've been doing a lot of reading on this topic, and no one in the community who has spoken out publicly has questioned the positive motives or intention of this survey, and that includes the teacher who was reprimanded--he said the school was trying to do something good by using it.

Unfortunately, some of the teachers, including Dryden, were not well prepared to answer the student's questions about the survey. And parents were apparently not informed about the lack of anonymity on the survey sheets. Those sorts of failures in communication, and any other issues of concern, should be discussed at future school board meetings and rectified before the survey is given again.

But the purpose of the survey was to benefit the students, and not to harm them, or to get them into any legal difficulty or jeopardy.

A zero tolerance drug policy means the student cannot possess or use any drugs/alcohol on school property or at school sponsored events. To be enforced, there has to be physical evidence of the substance found with the student.

A student who admits to drug or alcohol use on a school survey is not violating a zero tolerance policy--they will not be subject to adverse punitive consequences by the school, the information cannot be turned over to law enforcement, they are not violating any laws by admitting to such use, they are not putting themselves in any legal jeopardy.

As to whether their parents will find out, it's not clear how much info the school will share, or has shared, with the parents. Student info is protected by strict privacy standards, but parents are entitled to know certain things, and they should be informed of certain things. Getting a child necessary help, when problems are indicated, may be more important than whether one's parents find out about the problem.

Also, it should be considered that the students may be placing themselves, and their health, and their welfare, at jeopardy by doing things like using drugs and alcohol. And that's one reason for doing this survey, so that issues like that can be addressed with the students.

What's wrong with showing his picture? Hasn't he spoken to the media? Isn't this issue, and his identity, public knowledge?

Because of freedom of information policies, the information relating to this teacher, and the actions taken against him, is now readily available on the internet.

And he has been reprimanded before, not for being a "non-conformist" but for unprofessional behavior with students.

You can read about it all--including the exact complaints against Dryden for his behavior with this survey, and the remedies he is required to make, here...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144746964/Notice-to-Remedy

Dryden didn't just "advise" his students regarding their "civil rights"-- he also told them he wouldn't answer the survey questions honestly, and he wouldn't give any answers that "could get you in trouble." So he was not only trying to sabotage what the school was trying to accomplish with the survey, he was also actively promoting dishonesty.

He seems like considerably less of a hero after reading this info. Read it and judge for yourself.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144746964/Notice-to-Remedy

One thing to keep in mind... The US public school system is modeled after the Prussian system and not the system of Athens, Shangra-La, or Utopia. It was and remains geared to producing cannon fodder and bricks in the wall, and not scholars or free people.

NONSENSE as it is indeed illegal and can get a child declare a delinquent by the courts beside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go back and read what I wrote. I clarified what I was saying in a subsequent post. I was referring to a student admitting to such use on a school survey.

You can't be prosecuted, or placed in legal jeopardy, for just saying you use alcohol or drugs on a school survey. The student would have to be apprehended with evidence that such substances were in their possession for any law enforcement action based on illegal use.

Some parents may allow their high school students to have alcohol--and it may be legal for the minor to have it in the parent's presence, or with their permission.

My parents allowed me to have some alcohol in the home, some wine at an occasional family dinner, or an occasional drink at a family party, when I was 16 (and a senior in high school). It was not illegal. And I was never declared a delinquent by the courts. Had I taken a survey that asked about such alcohol use, I would have admitted it. And my parents would have admitted to allowing it.

the alarming part is that he apparently thought that the students are so dumb that they needed this common sense advice. a snoop is a snoop, and kids today get lots of practice in how to deal with them. the smart ones dont let the snoops find or find out anything that they dont want them to find(out).

you are mis-informed......"zero tolerance" very often means that if the bosses find out that you committed the crime then you will be punished. at my kids HS getting caught with drugs anywhere and the school finding out about it gets you kicked off of the football team. in university being accused of sexual assault anywhere by anyone often gets you kicked off the team, and lately also suspended from school. how about that case a few years ago where Central Washington University students were at an off campus party doing caffeinated alcohol, a claim was made that this part was a planned "rape the females" event, which turned out to be a fantasy, yet many of the males got kicked out of the university anyways?? These guys did not do anything but try to have fun like a lot of college kids try to have fun, but they got tarred and punished for breaking the Universities rules.

but I bet you know this...your post is probably just another Firefly Lie.

For the benefit of anybody who may not have figured this one out yet...

Nothing good could possibly come of filling out a form such as the one described here. The ONLY correct response is to tell the school officials that you have no interest in filling out such a form.

Getting caught with drugs is not the same as admitting on a school survey that you might have used drugs or alcohol.

A zero tolerance policy does not apply to the answers those students gave on the survey sheets--and the Batavia School Superintendent made it quite clear that the students would not be subjected to any legal consequences, or disciplinary action by the school, based on their survey responses.

And most of the survey questions had nothing to do with drugs or alcohol.

the correct response is the one that all bright students long ago learned, which is tell the adults what they want to hear so that they will go away. I see that the people who run these schools are so delusional that they thought that they could give this kind of test and get real answers.

Whatever the intentions, there is still opportunity to misuse the information.

I seem to recall a common saying about what the road to hell is paved with.

I sat each kid down at a certain age and gave the instruction "dont get caught!"....so long as they get the stuff done that they are supposed to get done I dont care what they do so long as they dont get caught. only the dumb ones get caught, and they were raised to be smart. being dumb is the real dishonor to this family, it is not vice.

the speech this teacher gave could have been mine.

So?

The just because the school needs to do something doesn't mean that the students are obligated to divulge private details of their lives.

Maybe it's good for the community for the students to divulge this information. That still doesn't mean that the students have to do so.

As they say, "Your need does not inspire a corrosponding sense of obligation on my part."

"once it is in an email or the internet it will never go away, it will always be out there for someone to find, so be careful about what you put out there".

was there a promise to destroy this information once the screening was concluded? could such a promise be trusted? no and no i am thinking.

"dont trust anyone, there are soooo many abusers out there just waiting to take advantage of you, but tell us everything we want to know about your innermost secrets and bad acts"

talk about giving mixed messages!

Where is the clear indication for that in this situation? The school has to legally protect the confidentiality of the survey information about the student, the testing service must also protect confidentiality and maintain security over the results of the survey.

I'm not sure there is any more reason to believe that this information will be misused than to believe a private lab would misuse the results of your bloodwork that your doctor ordered, bloodwork that could reveal potentially embarrassing, or unpleasant, things about your health. And most people don't avoid getting blood tests for that reason.

The school maintains records on students which are often considerably more revealing, and personal, than the sort of information this survey included. And that doesn't generate controversy.

I think you have to balance the benefits to students against the hypothetical possibility of some sort of "misuse" of the survey info by an unscrupulous individual. This school district had several students commit suicide in recent years and the teachers and school staff were not aware that the students had such serious emotional problems. Hopefully, surveys like this one, social/emotional surveys, will help identify students in need of support services before a tragedy occurs. And student service interventions have already been made with some students who took this survey in April. In addition, the school system is obligated, by the state, to provide social/emotional learning/SEL for students, and surveys of this nature allow them to evaluate such programs. Very few of the questions on this survey had anything to do with drugs or alcohol.

I think this whole alleged controversy is a tempest in a teapot that's confined to that particular school district. It sounds as though they rushed getting the survey done and didn't really take enough time to answer everyone's questions, or to provide enough information to get certain questions raised and answered, possibly because they wanted it accomplished well before the end of the school year. Before they go forward with this again next year, they should make sure everyone clearly understands what's going on, why it's being done, and can opt out if they don't like it.

I would have no problem with my school district using a similar survey to try to identify students who might be in need of supportive services. I have no problem with social/emotional surveys of this sort as long as no one is compelled to take them.

As to the teacher in this situation who was reprimanded, after reading the documents connected with the Board of Education's action, I definitely think he deserved the reprimand--his behavior with regard to the survey was unprofessional and inappropriate.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144746964/Notice-to-Remedy

Why a tenured teacher is choosing to flirt with getting fired, which is what he seems to be doing, is anyone's guess. But, when he tells his students he wouldn't be honest in answering the survey, and he wouldn't give answers that "could get you in trouble," he's asking for it from the Board, particularly since he's been reprimanded before for unprofessional conduct with students.