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

Not true. The school must maintain the student's privacy and confidentiality over personal and sensitive information. In addition, those staff members, like social workers and psychologists, who also obtain info of that nature, and work directly with troubled students, are also bound by the ethics of their professions--which include maintaining confidentiality.

I also prefer not to be contemptuous and dismissive just because I'm losing an argument.

oh my that's one big piece of cya



I hope the school community of students, teachers and parents cleans house at the board with some local activism.

Only some of the discussion was confidential and it pertained to Dryden the teacher. They may be limited in what they can publicly reveal about him that was part of the discussion--he has some rights too.

Their final decision regarding him, and the reasons for it, and what they now require of him, was obtained under the freedom of information act. That info is on the Web and I posted a link to it.

WOW! You are the anti-Obama!

So, that's why you said that...

"I prefer not to be oblivious and naïve," referring to me.

Guess you're being "contemptuous and dismissive" in spite of yourself.

I feel free to disagree that what a student does at home re drugs, alcohol, etc. is any of the school's business. Should a student come to school stoned out of his or her mind (oh, memories of Sean Penn as Jeff Spicoli) or be drunk in class, that's cause to question the student, and not before then. Hmmm, a relative used have great fear, performance fear if you will, about important tests, and would take a shot of whiskey before those events. He grew out of it, became a folk dancer as a hobby and lost his performance fear. He grew up to be a very responsible member of society, and absolutely not an alcoholic.

I don't care who agrees with me on this except that that particular district sounds like one scary place; that there is no loud hue and cry is also scary.

Gee, I bet he's tried smoking pot, or some similar unwise choice in that town. On his own time, of course.

Why? The Board of Education apparently faulted the School Superintendent's administration for their poor communication and lack of transparency regarding the survey. And they are apparently requiring some plan of corrective action for the future which the Superintendent says he will make public when it is developed.

Seems to me, the Board is doing its job.

Personally, of course, I have no real interest in what the people in Batavia decide to do about any of this.

It was quite deliberate, actually. Once I'm dealing with someone who's calling people "crazy" and "paranoid," then I'm not too worried about protecting their feelings. Unlike you, I didn't do it because I was losing an argument; I did it to point out what an ass you're being.

Whether you take the feedback or not is, of course, up to you.

Edit past edit time -
on that relative and his shot of whiskey before some scary final exam, the Christian Brothers either didn't notice or didn't mind.

Except I never called you anything. But, if you're that hypersensitive, perhaps you are paranoid.

I was talking about myself, and I said...

"I prefer not to be overly paranoid. It's a waste of energy."

And that is true about me. I am generally a pretty trusting person unless I have reason, or am given reason, to feel otherwise. But the last thing anyone would consider me to be would be "oblivious and naïve"--that couldn't be further off the mark.


And I really don't feel like I'm in an argument, let alone losing one.

What's to argue about with this situation?
A school system gave a survey--probably the way many school systems give similar surveys. The administrators communicated poorly, and weren't transparent enough about what they were doing with this particular survey. They got called out about that and said they'll improve in the future.
A teacher acted inappropriately and unprofessionally in dealing with his students about the survey. He got called out on that and was reprimanded.

I've said before, I think this is a tempest in a teapot in that local area. And how the people in Batavia choose to resolve it really doesn't concern me.

I've also said before, I have no objection if my local school district gives a similar survey as long as no one is compelled to take it.

I'm not unduly suspicious of a school district's ability to protect students' confidential and personal information on any matters. I can think of no instance where my own school district was accused of misusing such information or violating a student's privacy by disclosing info in a file. I'm satisfied that they abide by the strict standards regarding privacy that have been put into place. Schools collect and compile sensitive and personal information about students all the time--there's nothing new about this.

Truthfully, I think people should be more concerned about the fact that these students might be abusing drugs or alcohol, and damaging themselves, than concerned that their admissions to doing that, on a high school questionnaire, designed to identify such students, might be "misused". I think people should be more concerned about getting these students help and support services, than worrying about whether a survey questionnaire is too invasive. And that may well be how most of the people in Batavia feel about it also.

But there really is nothing to argue about here. I really don't care whether you agree with me or not. If I choose to trust my school district, that's my business. If you choose not to trust yours, that's your business. And the entire issue in this thread is really the business of the people in Batavia. I don't see these issues as having general applicability.

So I have no idea what argument you seem to think you're winning or I'm losing.

My only interest in this thread was to dig up enough information so I understood why they did the survey, and exactly why they chose to reprimand the teacher, simply to satisfy my own curiosity. And when I managed to find the actual documents sent to the teacher, that detailed his latest misconduct, as well as his previous errors in judgment, and I had a much better idea of exactly why he was reprimanded, my interest in this entire discussion dwindled to almost nil.

I generally participate in threads that spur me to do more research and reading, whether to satisfy my curiosity or just to educate myself more. If I can't actually learn something by my participation, just trading opinions doesn't interest me much. I now know more about Batavia high school, and all the expansions and new construction that's gone on there in the past few years, and their insanely strict student code of conduct, and where they ranked on the latest national test scores, than I ever dreamed of knowing.

And I'm satisfied, in my own mind, that that teacher wasn't unjustly shafted by the school administration--he behaved inappropriately, and unprofessionally, and deserved to be reprimanded. And it's unfortunate that he provided his students with a role model of how to jeopardize your employment by acting like a jerk.

And now you're trying to split hairs on whether implying something is the same as calling someone something.

Are you that much of a narcissist that you can't admit to error?

Geez... defensive, much?

geez if you need to take a guy out, a guy who allegedly is misbehaving all over the place, at least get him for something other than for something that he did while clearly aiming at defending teen rights. some of us support that particular cause.

It those damn constitutional rights that the Fireflies of the world hate as without them the government could be all so must more helpful then they are now and the very last thing we would wish to do is allow the teaching of those damn rights in the schools.

I'm enjoying firefly's posts even though I don't really agree with all the points s/he makes.

Debate is a good thing.

I generally like Firefly's posts, too. That's why it's disappointing to see her go all ad hominem "you're crazy so your argument is worthless." (Or, worse, "I don't want to address what you're saying so I'll just call you crazy and dismiss you.")

Generally, I follow the rule "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence (or stupidity)."

I'd call the survey incompetent, given the way it was implemented.

I'd call disciplining the teacher malicious.

I'm still waiting to hear what services were offered to kids that responded to the survey in a way that would cause concern.

I'm still waiting to hear in what ways the school might be liable if another kid commits suicide after their intervention.

I'd love to know what questions were on this survey beyond drugs and alcohol use.

I'd like to know if they surveyed the senior class. Those kids will be leaving the school very soon and I doubt the school would have had time to intervene in any meaningful way.

I confess I'm very skeptical and probably even a little paranoid about what schools think is good for students.