128 students suspended at Ind. school

"toypup" wrote in message
et...

"nimue" wrote in message
...
toypup wrote:
Yeah? Well, we need to reach ALL the kids. They all matter to me. We
have
to work hard to get them to attend school and the last thing I want is to
send them home for a minor thing like a dress code violation when it took
so
much to get them to school in the first place.

That's right. That's why you can go motivate them at New Beginnings.


The ones who don't can go to
an alternative school where they can go no matter what rules they
break and OP can motivate them.

We are talking about kids who violate the dress code. That's it. You
want
them sent to New Beginnings? Charming.

I assume that's the sort of school I'm talking about for disruptive kids.
One violation wouldn't warrant that. A child who wants to learn would not
have repeated violations. Kids who can't follow rules go somewhere else.

I really don't care to be in class
with disruptive kids and I don't want my kids in class with
disruptive kids. Just because they are poor doesn't mean they don't
want to go to school. There are plenty of kids there who would
welcome the more peaceful environment.

Why do you assume that a kid who violates the dress code is disruptive?

I only want kids in class who want to learn. Kids who want to learn will
follow rules, however mundane they may be, just to be in class. Kids who
don't want to be in class, what exactly are they learning if they don't
want to be there? I've been in some of those lower level classes (because
of scheduling or whatever), and they are just babysitting classes. The
teachers have no control. My brother was tracked to those classes and
when I remarked to him how awful it was, he said it's always like that.
If you keep them in school no matter what, those are the classes you get
for the ones who don't want to be there.

Maybe you need to watch *To Sir With Love*, I think that's what it's called.
You can't just pick and choose kids for a particular school.

Jen

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:55:56 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"Jen" wrote in message
...

Um, that's what I read. She can't afford the clothes. She needs cute
clothes, not secondhand, but Old Navy. How does she afford Old Navy if
she's so poor she can't afford clothes?

Oh come on! Now you're just being silly. This is why I prefer
uniforms.
But if they can't have uniforms, kids don't want to look *stupid*,
especially at a time in their lives when their appearance in very
important to them, and all sorts of self esteem problems can exist.

I never wore fashionable clothes because we were poor. It didn't hurt me
one bit.

It didn't hurt me not to wear fashionable clothes, and we *weren't*
poor. However, I'm 43, and nobody really gave a crap what anyone
wore. It's different now. Just because YOU can't understand how
clothing can make a child feel good doesn't mean the concept doesn't
exist.

That's exactly what I was thinking. You're the same age as me! I don't
think any of us really worried at all, but kids theses days do.

Jen

"Jen" wrote in message
...

"toypup" wrote in message

I only want kids in class who want to learn. Kids who want to learn will
follow rules, however mundane they may be, just to be in class. Kids who
don't want to be in class, what exactly are they learning if they don't
want to be there? I've been in some of those lower level classes
(because of scheduling or whatever), and they are just babysitting
classes. The teachers have no control. My brother was tracked to those
classes and when I remarked to him how awful it was, he said it's always
like that. If you keep them in school no matter what, those are the
classes you get for the ones who don't want to be there.

Maybe you need to watch *To Sir With Love*,

What's it about?

I think that's what it's called.
You can't just pick and choose kids for a particular school.

Depends on the school. Some schools can be more selective. You can
sometimes pick that school.

"Tori M" wrote in message
.. .

The bottom line is this -- I don't think a child should be made to miss
class for a dress code violation. That's it.

So what would you deem the apropriate course of action for a dress code
violation? If nothing I am taking it you dont think there should be any
sort of dress code.. How then do you create a safe environment for not
only the kids wearing the cloths but the other kids that may be offended
or hurt by words on slogan shirts? At what point does the rights of 10%
of the students outweigh 90% of the class?


She has said time and time again, that she doesn't disagree with a dress
code, just that for minor violations, sending them home is a bit harsh!!

Jen

"toypup" wrote in message
et...

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:09:55 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:51:49 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:19:19 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:

What do you think should be done with repeat offenders?

It depends on the severity of the offense.

The offense we are talking about, breaking the dress code. How about
constantly wearing very short miniskirts? Constantly wearing jeans so
loose
they are halfway down to the knees with boxers showing? Consistently
breaking the dress code so that your detentions are not having an
effect?

Just because a dress code exists doesn't make it a Good Thing. ZT
isn't a Good Thing, imo.

If a student is "constantly" or "consistently" breaking the dress code
after previous attempts at discipline have been enforced, then more
strict discipline should probably be used. AFTER it's determined that
the student does have the resources to buy clothing within the
guidelines, of course.

What is more strict discipline? Please give examples.

Well, I think suspension is stupid. But most policies are. Since I
can't force the school system to think my way, then I'd find
suspension less distasteful. Where are you trying to go with this?

You did not like the idea of suspensions, so I wondered what your solution
would be. You had not offered an alternative. So, suspension it is.
OTOH, I remember kids being paddled right up through middle school for
violations of I don't know what. If that were still in force, then maybe
that would be the discipline, not that I'd agree with it. My point being,
you have to do something to enforce rules within the boundaries of what is
available. Since there is no corporal punishment, humiliation, etc., etc.,
there is not much left that can be done as a consequence for their
misbehavior.

It's about a first offence though! The discipline for the *first offence*
was suspension!

Jen

"Jen" wrote in message
...
It's about a first offence though! The discipline for the *first offence*
was suspension!

If that was their rule, then that was their rule. I do think it is harsh,
but it's the rule. I presume they made it clear to everyone what the
consequence would be and that it would be enforced. Personally, I think it
is better to send the students home to change for a first or even second
offense. Suspension would be better for repeat offense. However, that is
just my opinion. If the school had a rule that first offense is a
suspension, so be it. I would follow it. If I want it changed, I would
lobby the change, but I would not do it by breaking the dress code
deliberately so they could send me home.

"nimue" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
"nimue" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
snip

Yet the kid had the option of wearing dress that conforms to the
published code.

If skirts above the knees and tank tops are prohibited, she should
know and conform to the code.

Whether or not she knew or didn't (and I suspect she didn't), she
should not
be removed from class as a punishment. That sends the wrong message.
These
kids should understand that education is the most important thing. I
remember last year a kid's mother found out she was dating an
inappropriate
guy and punished her by not letting her go on the college trip (we
send kids
on trips to different colleges to expose them to that world). I was
horrified. This girl NEEDED to see college. That should not have
been used
as a punishment. The only way out this girl has is college.
Anyway, I think making a kid miss class for a dress code violation
is just as stupid.

You also have to consequences. I guess the principal thinks that kids
should be prepared for class. That includes, in that school, pens,
pencils, notebooks and conforming to the dress code.

Are you suggesting we suspend kids who don't bring pens to class?


LOL!!

"toypup" wrote in message
et...

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:16:35 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"nimue" wrote in message
...
toypup wrote:
and we wonder
where the kids get all this from.

I have your kids for 45 minutes a day. If you wonder where they got
anything from, look to yourself.

My kids are fine. It's your kids who aren't motivated and you can barely
keep in class. They are so unmotivated you have to relax the rules and
do
whatever you can to keep them there.

So, it's better to have them drop out and potentially end up on
welfare because of some clothing issues? Get a grip.

I didn't say drop out. I say they can attend if they are following the
rules. If they don't want to follow rules, they can go to school for kids
who don't follow rules.

My Gosh! What is wrong with you? We're talking about someone who isn't
wearing her clothes quite right.

Jen

"Jen" wrote in message
...
"Nan" wrote in message
It didn't hurt me not to wear fashionable clothes, and we *weren't*
poor. However, I'm 43, and nobody really gave a crap what anyone
wore. It's different now. Just because YOU can't understand how
clothing can make a child feel good doesn't mean the concept
doesn't
exist.

That's exactly what I was thinking. You're the same age as me! I
don't think any of us really worried at all, but kids theses days
do.

I can't believe people didn't care then. I was never particularly
fashionable, but I remember Jordache jeans as being *must have* for
high school. And Levi's with the cuffs turned up and the size clearly
visible on that leather tag on the back -- that must have been middle
school. And preppie was *huge* at one point with it's mixture of pink
and green, the sweaters over collared shirts and those little gold
chains with the beads on them. And plaid a-line skirts, and high top
Converse sneakers, and tiny little track shorts, and Izod anyone? I
never could afford an Izod.

I just turned 42, so I'm your generation. I think you're just looking
back with misty eyes.

Bizby

Jen wrote:
I would hate for my daughter to go to a school without a uniform, individual
expression and creativity in the choice of clothes, should be at home, not
school.

Why? So your kid learns how to be a clone? That's ridiculous.

It seems to me it would be so hard *to keep up with the Joneses*.

Why would you feel you would need to?


The kids that have more money would wear the more expensive and fashionable
clothes, the poorer kids would have difficulty.

So what? People have dealt with this effectively for years. You
teach your child that clothes aren't what makes a person - that what is
inside is all that counts.


Wearing a uniform you can
get away with wearing clothes for 2 days, occasionally more- with casual
clothes, it would be obvious, and the pressure would be on to change daily.

I don't want my kid wearing a shirt for more than a day, anyway - jeans
he could probably go for two, but that's all I'd let go. It's
unsanitary to wear clothing more than that.


I think there's a lot of good reasons for uniforms. Like someone else said,
it just needs to be a specific colour even.

Uniforms are for schools who don't have any control over their
students, and parents who don't have a clue how to foster
individuality, instill self-esteem, and/or are lazy. School
administrators have no place dictating what a child wears to a public
school.

-L.