TexasCHLforum.com

Read about it. Poorly handled IMO by everyone from the parent to the police.

The parent should not have texted her during school hours. Daughter should have tried to explain what was wrong and asked for help instead of running away and should have obeyed the LEO. The AP and the principals should have tried to de-escalate the situation instead of escalating it further (find out what is wrong, attend to the crisis, then discipline for defiance), there us really no excuse for calling in LEOs over a cellphone. The LEOs should have had better sense than to get involved in this sort of a dispute. It is not their job to enforce school rules, but rather the law. We should not be using police as classroom management.

LEOs have a hard enough time without being called in for hysterical teens and classroom cell phone use. Principals should not use them as their personal school rule compliance strong arms. It is wrong to put them in that position.

Enough poo in that sandwich for everyone to take a big bite.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
This was an Arizona case, not a Texas case.

It was also a strip search for contraband, not removal of a student's clothing because it violated the school dress code as in baron's absurd question. In Texas, I suspect removing a student's clothing because of a dress code violation would see a teacher in handcuffs and prosecuted for assault and possibly other charges.

The 9th Court of Appeals held that the student's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the strip search.

Chas.

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding wrote: Savanah Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Ms. Redding might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy. Ms. Redding subsequently filed suit against the school district and the school officials responsible for the search in the District Court for the District of Arizona. She alleged her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. On the initial appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. However, on rehearing before the entire court, the court of appeals held that Ms. Redding's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. It reasoned that the strip search was not justified nor was the scope of intrusion reasonably related to the circumstances.

It still shows that strip searches and removal of clothing has happened by school officials. It is still a valid question as to what degree of intrusion is permitted by the law into a child's personal effects. Locker searches and confiscation of misuse of phones = ok. Strip searches are not ok, even when in search of contraband.

There is lots of gray area there. How about shirts that offend people? How about shirts that have controversial slogans? How about shirts or jewelry of a religious nature. How about a folder with a guns save lives sticker on it? How about distracting make up or hairstyles? Can a teacher make a student go and wash off the lime green eyeshadow? When I was in school we had goths that wore all black clothing, black eyeshadow, black fingernail polish, and generally looked like vampires. Can a student in photography class take a picture of his .22 and develop it in the lab. I suspect different schools have different answers to those questions.

So I think the question of removal of clothing or the requirement to turn a shirt inside out on request of a teacher is a valid one. Can a teacher request that and enforce their word as law.

You know I might agree with you that a swat of the paddle would be beneficial to the young man in question. However, there are simply too many perverts out there for it to be a safe policy anymore. With all the cases coming out of teachers sexually assaulting teens I don't think that it would be wise to permit that.

I am not against corporal punishment, but the misuse or even abuse of it is much more likely by a non parent. These are not the good old days when everyone feared a Holy God and would never consider damaging another persons child and most people could be trusted to know the difference between discipline and abuse.

Unfortunately that time is over and gone. It was gone when I was a child, we just were not all aware of it's demise yet.

Now perhaps if a parent had given him a loving swat or two when he was 4 and threw a tantrum things would have turned out better for all.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baron wrote:School policy probably allows them to do whatever they want in practice but is there a law that gives them that authority? Can a teacher or administrator remove a student's clothing that violates school policy, or is it only certain personal property they can remove without consent?

This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm not sure of the answer. I do recall from law school 100 years ago that schools and teachers have very broad authority to control their classes and that many constitutional protections do not apply in the classroom.

Your example of removing clothing is absurd.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton respectfully your idea that the removal of clothing would be absurd to be demanded is incorrect. It happened. It happened in the court case Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding. It was found that they had violated her rights. However, the fact that it did happen shows that the question is not absurd.

On this case a teacher usually can ask for a removal of an item such as a cell phone. What the student did in response was unwise and foolish.

My experience with the school system is not just my own education. I also taught as a long term sub in the public schools, and taught at a private school for 4 years. So I have worked under both private and public school systems. I could confiscate items, I usually held them for the parents to collect at the end of the day. Things were more discretionary at the private school (when does a kids magazine or necklace become a classroom nuisance), the public school had hard fast rules that permitted little discretion.

mojo84 wrote:Why not just make a decision for you and your family and not try to "promote" or push your decision on others? Many home schoolers push the idea of eliminating public education because that is what works best for them. That's who my comment was referencing.

Because when something works I tell other people about it. When I see people suffering in a system that is designed to fail I try to tell them about a way out.

Alright...Mr. Cotton

mojo84 wrote:
No where did I say I am not for choice or freedom. If so, please cite my comment specifically. My comment was directed at the slam against public school and promoting the answer as home schooling. Homeschooling is a very valid and great option for some. We have about five families in our neighborhood with whom we are very close friends. They have experienced mixed results. Sometimes even in the same family with different kids.

I believe in choice and freedom. I do not believe in bashing any one of the options or eliminating any of the options. I also think it is an elitist and offensive comment to parents when one makes a comment about parents being willing to subject their kids to "feral" kids. Just like society as a whole, there are bad people everywher and we all need to learn how to deal with them.

Therefore, I stand by my comment about people that choose to seize every opportunity to promote their choice as being the right choice for everyone.

If a person kept being attacked and was frustrated about it.....would you not recommend them to take precautions and carry a weapon, or avoid the situation entirely. That is all homeschoolers are doing when they say "homeschool".

There are feral children in this world. Sorry you don't like the term, but I think it is accurate for unparented, violent teens. There are a higher density of them in lower income areas. If you want your child to not have to deal with them in greater numbers, you will have to buy a home in a higher priced area.

As for we all have to deal with bad people. Sure....but I have never had to deal with the caliber of people I dealt with in school after I left high school. The lowlifes did not go to college, they did not get jobs that required education. The druggies stayed home and got baked. So no, we don't all have to know how to deal with being sat 6 inches from a drug dealer and having no choice but to sit by him and try to learn algebra 2.

You promote the 2nd amendment choice to defend ourselves. I promote the homeschooling option as a way to keep our kids out of conniving teachers and feral youth. Not all teachers are conniving and not all youth are feral, but in a public school you have no choice about either. If your child is sat next to a child that is feral.....oh well. If your child has a teacher that is there to collect a paycheck and is cruel....oh well. That is why I think for most people homeschooling is so a better option. Just like I think carrying a gun give you optionss when dealing with danger.

Ah yes the old socialization nut. Completely debunked and cracked but always brought up again and again. Are there shy homeschoolers...yes. Are there shy publicschoolers....yes.

Is public school and the nonsense that goes on there where we want our children to be socialized. Is there anything in life after highschool that bears even a remote resemblance to being locked in with 300-1200 of your peers your own age for 8 hours a day with no way to escape and no way to leave an abusive situation. Only prison.

I personally know somewhere between 25 and 35 homeschooling families. I have met hundred more. They are all very involved in extra curricular activities. So the myth of the homeschooled child never ever leaving home is just that, a myth.

On your daughter being "fine". I am sure my father would say the same thing about me. I was not fine though. I am naturally an extrovert, naturally outgoing, naturally friendly. The abuse that happened from grades 4-8 to me and was permitted by the teachers who turned a blind eye did appalling damage to my personality that took years of healing. It was unnecessary and unhelpful. I turned out ok because of my faith, and my parents love not because of the public schools but in spite of them.

mojo84 wrote:Nothing is missing. It's just the home school narrative to size any opportunity to promote what is good for some. Kind of like when some seize any gun related incidence to promote their agenda.

Pretty poor comparison to equivocate people who are champions of freedom and choice for parents in the education of their children (homeschoolers) to those who would take away your freedom and choice to own firearms.

If you don't want your kids around feral youth you have basically three options. 1. Buy a home in a higher priced neighborhood (usually the better the neighborhood the better the school). 2. Private school. 3. Homeschool.

Of course with choice 1 and sometimes choice 2 there is no guarantee that your child won't be subject to some insane administrator or teacher that chooses to make a chewed pop tart into a suspension worthy crime or a seatbelt cutter into a criminal case.

Your choice, choose the best you can for your kids.