oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Why hasn't anyone been reporting on this?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high-school-shooting/index.html

I'm sure I know why.  No good buzz words like AR-15 or assault rifle are in this.

It's still gun violence though.  How the 17yo got the gun is a real problem.

Of course it was reported on. It was also discussed in this thread already, a few pages back, so I guess you don’t “know why”. 

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Home schooled kids are usually weird, don't do it, lol. No matter what you try to do to counteract it, that they are separated that much from their peers and not sharing so many experiences daily with them can't be good for them socially. Not to mention the complete lack of variety in their education that home schooling necessitates. (obviously do what you think is best... I'm just saying that I think home schooling pretty much sucks for the kids generally... However, there some obvious exceptions to every rule).

Because a child who spends an extended amount of time around kids in a public school aren't weird, deviant and more socially adept? Again, it all comes down to how the parents conduct the homeschool experience. There are numerous activities and groups for homeschool parents. I would argue that they generally have more positive social interactions because they don't have to vie for the attention of their teacher along with 25 other kids and be subjected to the distractions, bullying and influence of the kids who create a difficult learning environment.

Besides families that do it for strictly religious reasons, which I think is limiting the scope of the education, a homeschool child isn't confined to the systematic approach of the public school system. I do agree that private schools are a great option if you can afford it because they usually approach education as it relates to the whole child and incorporate movement into the day beyond just recess.

There are a lot of positive benefits to homeschooling that seem to get overlooked while the stigmas and biases become the standard label for no reason. Unless you have some other research or source that indicates this trend of weird kids being homeschooled it would seem appropriate to stop spreading that inaccurate opinion.

https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/

http://www.businessinsider.com/structured-homeschool-canada-2011-9

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-kids-should-get-homeschooled-2016-8

Nope, I'm obviously not saying people who aren't home schooled can't be weird, lol. I think you knew that, right?

Just an opinion man. I don't think homeschooling is a good choice for kids for the reasons I already said, and yes, I know how it works. And home schooling for religious reasons is even worse as far as this hard core atheist is concerned, lol. But I'm not stopping parents from doing it anyway, so my opinion is pretty irrelevant. I would think your comment would be reasonable if I had posted some incorrect facts, which I didn't, but I don't think it's reasonable at all for you to suggest I "stop spreading (my) inaccurate opinion." It's my opinion, so it is 100% accurate, and I formed my opinion based on plenty of information and my own observations. There is nothing inaccurate about that. You simply don't agree with me.

I should just let this go, but I can't lol. You're right, I do disagree and maybe it's because I think an opinion should at least somewhat be based on factual evidence to support said opinion.

I just find it ironic that the last few pages of this thread has focused on the unequal playing field kids have based on access to private schooling with better resources for counseling/conflict resolution. While public schools don't have the same options with bullying and how that leads to violent outbursts. Yet you are making a completely biased statement without any factual reason. It's no different than me stating that I think black people are usually gang members or pearl jam fans are usually crazy (maybe some truth there based on what I read on here lol).

I don't expect you to agree with me. I just think making negative overarching generalizations about a certain group of people is something we should all be striving not to do. People get pissed when our racist asshole in chief states it about Mexicans and Muslims based on a small sample of issues so why is your opinion ok in this case?  There are a lot of terrible atrocities in our history that began as mere opinions and were fabricated into something bigger.

Alright, rant over.

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no idea, but to be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for a private school to house a monster, lol. Of course any school can have a psychopath as a student, or an extremely troubled or abused student, or a mentally ill student. I'm just saying that the chances of a school shooter coming out of a private school (and thus shooting up a private school) are much, much smaller for the reasons I mentioned. Far fewer kids slip through the cracks at private schools.

Fewer may “slip through the cracks”, but I think it’s fair to say that private schools expel most of the kids with any significant behavioural issues. They aren’t required to try to educate these kids, the way that public schools are. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison at all, because there’s a large selection bias. 

Where are you getting  that info? Public schools expel kids all the time - no school is forced to keep a problem kid at the school. I would guess that most private school kids who are expelled end up at another private school.

Not true.

A kid can be expelled from a school, but it takes a lot of 'incidents' before that occurs.

There's a thing called 'progressive discipline' which allows for a lot of really poor behaviour. And I mean really poor behaviour. Administrators cannot exercise judgement- they've been rendered useless.

With that said, a major episode can expedite the process somewhat... but a 'major episode' is usually something that damages somebody.

No, it is true, if you read what I actually said. I know about progressive discipline and acknowledge it. My point was that private schools do it too. It's just that their motives for doing it are different.

I would agree more with 30.
It is so much easier to expel a student at a private school. It is incredibly difficult at a public school today.
A private school with a high enrollment and wait list can and do expel kids even for grades. My wife went to a private school (she hated it) it was an extremely strict Christian school. They had a demerit system, and at a certain point you got expelled. You got demerits for wearing jeans, she actually knows several people who were expelled their senior year for something that stupid. You got demerits for being tardy to class. She told me one day her friend built up enough small demerits from things like that, and one day showed up in jeans and got expelled.  I think drugs and alcohol was an immediate expulsion. Now kids can deal and do drugs at public school and get a 3-day suspension for it.
Unfortunately public schools are forced to keep problem kids all the time. It actually is a major problem, how difficult it is to expel a student and how tolerant public schools have become of behavior, even violent behavior. 
Private schools who struggle for enrollment are probably a lot more tolerant, but there are many that are not.

Again, do you guys even understand what my initial point was? It doesn't seem like it. You seem to be assuming I'm somehow trying to give credit to private schools or something? I'm not. I actually said I don't think they should even be legal.
FWIW, I come from a family of public educators/school administrators, so I'm pretty aware of how it works. As for silly private school demerits... what dumb kid would wear jeans to a school where everyone is wearing a uniform? I've known tons of people who went to private school or kids who go now, and that shit just isn't happening, and there are very few expulsions happening at all because the kids are indeed better controlled and behaved because of all the reasons I already said.

they were addressing your claim that public schools expel kids all the time and 'no school is forced to keep a problem kid'. yes, they actually are. my oldest daughter has a kid in her class who routinely throws violent fits. even so far as throwing chairs across the fucking room. during olympic week the kids all decorated their home rooms with national flags. she tore a rival room's flag to shreds, and literally nothing was done about it. the kids are taught to go in the hall when this occurs. the kid is still in the class, the teacher is at his wits end, apologizes endlessly for the bullshit he has to keep up with because that means he isn't able to spend as much time with the good kids as he would like to or the kids who are struggling but don't have behaviour issues but he can't because he's constantly putting out fires because they simply are not allowed to effectively deal with the situation. 

That story is not about schools being forced to keep a problem kid. That is a story about a school choosing to keep a problem kid. When you can say "literally nothing was done about it", that is about an administration doing things badly, not about what they are required to do by law or district policy.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

It is about what they are required to do by law and district policy. This is the entire point: public schools adhere to different codes than private schools who can mandate higher academic and behavioural rigour.

Administrators haven't failed in these cases- they are bound by public school policies which are weighted heavily in support of poorly behaving kids. While such policies support the 'offender' and ensure they stay in school and receive an education... the cost is significant: school tone and culture suffer, bullying occurs, teachers become exasperated, etc. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have no idea, but to be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for a private school to house a monster, lol. Of course any school can have a psychopath as a student, or an extremely troubled or abused student, or a mentally ill student. I'm just saying that the chances of a school shooter coming out of a private school (and thus shooting up a private school) are much, much smaller for the reasons I mentioned. Far fewer kids slip through the cracks at private schools.

Fewer may “slip through the cracks”, but I think it’s fair to say that private schools expel most of the kids with any significant behavioural issues. They aren’t required to try to educate these kids, the way that public schools are. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison at all, because there’s a large selection bias. 

Where are you getting  that info? Public schools expel kids all the time - no school is forced to keep a problem kid at the school. I would guess that most private school kids who are expelled end up at another private school.

Not true.

A kid can be expelled from a school, but it takes a lot of 'incidents' before that occurs.

There's a thing called 'progressive discipline' which allows for a lot of really poor behaviour. And I mean really poor behaviour. Administrators cannot exercise judgement- they've been rendered useless.

With that said, a major episode can expedite the process somewhat... but a 'major episode' is usually something that damages somebody.

No, it is true, if you read what I actually said. I know about progressive discipline and acknowledge it. My point was that private schools do it too. It's just that their motives for doing it are different.

I would agree more with 30.
It is so much easier to expel a student at a private school. It is incredibly difficult at a public school today.
A private school with a high enrollment and wait list can and do expel kids even for grades. My wife went to a private school (she hated it) it was an extremely strict Christian school. They had a demerit system, and at a certain point you got expelled. You got demerits for wearing jeans, she actually knows several people who were expelled their senior year for something that stupid. You got demerits for being tardy to class. She told me one day her friend built up enough small demerits from things like that, and one day showed up in jeans and got expelled.  I think drugs and alcohol was an immediate expulsion. Now kids can deal and do drugs at public school and get a 3-day suspension for it.
Unfortunately public schools are forced to keep problem kids all the time. It actually is a major problem, how difficult it is to expel a student and how tolerant public schools have become of behavior, even violent behavior. 
Private schools who struggle for enrollment are probably a lot more tolerant, but there are many that are not.

Again, do you guys even understand what my initial point was? It doesn't seem like it. You seem to be assuming I'm somehow trying to give credit to private schools or something? I'm not. I actually said I don't think they should even be legal.
FWIW, I come from a family of public educators/school administrators, so I'm pretty aware of how it works. As for silly private school demerits... what dumb kid would wear jeans to a school where everyone is wearing a uniform? I've known tons of people who went to private school or kids who go now, and that shit just isn't happening, and there are very few expulsions happening at all because the kids are indeed better controlled and behaved because of all the reasons I already said.

they were addressing your claim that public schools expel kids all the time and 'no school is forced to keep a problem kid'. yes, they actually are. my oldest daughter has a kid in her class who routinely throws violent fits. even so far as throwing chairs across the fucking room. during olympic week the kids all decorated their home rooms with national flags. she tore a rival room's flag to shreds, and literally nothing was done about it. the kids are taught to go in the hall when this occurs. the kid is still in the class, the teacher is at his wits end, apologizes endlessly for the bullshit he has to keep up with because that means he isn't able to spend as much time with the good kids as he would like to or the kids who are struggling but don't have behaviour issues but he can't because he's constantly putting out fires because they simply are not allowed to effectively deal with the situation. 

That story is not about schools being forced to keep a problem kid. That is a story about a school choosing to keep a problem kid. When you can say "literally nothing was done about it", that is about an administration doing things badly, not about what they are required to do by law or district policy.

their hands are tied. as 30 explained above. 

mcgruff10 said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Out of curiosity, I checked on that. No, Adam Lanza didn't attend private school. He attended public school (including Sandy Hook) for years, and then a public Intermediate school, and then home schooling, which seems to be when he got really weird. Doesn't say much for home schooling! Although in all fairness to his mother, perhaps she chose to home-school him because he was acting all fucked up, and not the other way around.
(I do admit that I think home schooling is fucking weird unless absolutely necessary)

Why do you think home schooling is weird? I think a lot of the preconceived stigmas of homeschool kids has come from TV, movies or the families that gain notoriety in the media, which in truth aren't homeschooling, just deviant parents, but claim homeschool so they can prevent their kids from drawing attention to human services.

Maybe you missed this yesterday, but I see you called it weird again @PJ_Soul.

I did miss it, and yes I called it weird again, lol. I think I answered your question in my reply to Dankind.

I'd agree with PJ, home-schooled kids are weird. 
That doesn't mean all are, and every public school kid isn't. But that home-schooled kids are more likely/higher percentage of being weird.
It is probably a combination of the families that are more likely to home-school (A lot of ultra-conservative Christian homes home school, that's why there are so many religious homeschool programs), combined with the lack of peer interaction.
I have a lot of nieces and nephews who are home-schooled. My brother home-schools and my wife's brother and sister both do. Some of them have very normal kids and do a great job exposing them to strong academics and other peers, and some of them do not. It is very clear when interacting with them which ones see the same 4 people every day and which ones are exposed to more interaction.
We used to joke in college and point out who was home-schooled. We were surprisingly accurate because it was pretty easy to determine who was experiencing a school setting like that and interacting with a large group for the first time and who was not.

Just read this and thought about the conversation about home schooled kids:

Austin bomber Mark Anthony Conditt was part of Christian survivalist group that discussed 'dangerous' chemicals

The Austin bomber was involved in a teenage Christian “survivalist” group that discussed weapons and dangerous chemicals, according to a childhood friend.

Mark Anthony Conditt reportedly took part in a conservative outdoors club called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), in which home-schooled young people studied the Bible and were taught gun skills.

Police in Texas are hunting for clues about what drove the 23-year-old to embark on a bombing spree which killed two people and terrorised the state capital for weeks.

"He and and his family are as normal as I’ve seen anybody," Jeff Reeb, a neighbour of the Conditt family in Pflugerville for approximately 17 years, told The Independent.

Another neighbour, Lee Roca, said he was shocked when he saw Conditt identified as the bombing suspect on the news. Mr Roca said he recognised Conditt from karaoke nights at a local bar called Red Rooster, and he may well have shaken his hand.

Officers found a 25-minute mobile phone recording that they said amounted to a “confession” after Conditt blew himself up as authorities closed in on him on Wednesday.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

It is about what they are required to do by law and district policy. This is the entire point: public schools adhere to different codes than private schools who can mandate higher academic and behavioural rigour.

Administrators haven't failed in these cases- they are bound by public school policies which are weighted heavily in support of poorly behaving kids. While such policies support the 'offender' and ensure they stay in school and receive an education... the cost is significant: school tone and culture suffer, bullying occurs, teachers become exasperated, etc. 

I think I mentioned that my family are educators, both teachers and administrators? I really do know what the deal is Thirty. And MY entire point was also that public schools and private schools have different codes, and that private schools do indeed mandate higher academic and behavioral rigour. Did you think I was arguing otherwise?? That's what I've been saying all along.
But I TOTALLY disagree that Administrators haven't failed in these cases. That's crazy-talk. Some administrators are great... others are absolute fucking crap. The same can be said for those running districts. 

We're getting closer here.

You won't get an argument from me on the variability of administrators at local or district levels, but I still need you to recognize that even the strongest administrators cannot expel kids when they realize it is the right thing to do like private schools can. Instead, the public school administrator must adhere to the progressive discipline model which removes any professional judgement they might have regarding the individual situation.

Kids can act really poorly and never be in too much trouble. They just need to know what the line is... cross it slightly... and operate there. The 'line' generally allows for a lot of poor behaviour that does not require administrative intervention- defiance, confrontation, academic apathy, and general disrespect among other things.

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

It is about what they are required to do by law and district policy. This is the entire point: public schools adhere to different codes than private schools who can mandate higher academic and behavioural rigour.

Administrators haven't failed in these cases- they are bound by public school policies which are weighted heavily in support of poorly behaving kids. While such policies support the 'offender' and ensure they stay in school and receive an education... the cost is significant: school tone and culture suffer, bullying occurs, teachers become exasperated, etc. 

I think I mentioned that my family are educators, both teachers and administrators? I really do know what the deal is Thirty. And MY entire point was also that public schools and private schools have different codes, and that private schools do indeed mandate higher academic and behavioral rigour. Did you think I was arguing otherwise?? That's what I've been saying all along.
But I TOTALLY disagree that Administrators haven't failed in these cases. That's crazy-talk. Some administrators are great... others are absolute fucking crap. The same can be said for those running districts. 

We're getting closer here.

You won't get an argument from me on the variability of administrators at local or district levels, but I still need you to recognize that even the strongest administrators cannot expel kids when they realize it is the right thing to do like private schools can. Instead, the public school administrator must adhere to the progressive discipline model which removes any professional judgement they might have regarding the individual situation.

Kids can act really poorly and never be in too much trouble. They just need to know what the line is... cross it slightly... and operate there. The 'line' generally allows for a lot of poor behaviour that does not require administrative intervention- defiance, confrontation, academic apathy, and general disrespect among other things.

You're making the same argument that I did re the private schools. I never made the claim I think you think I did? My argument was that private schools certainly do have more power in the decision-making. My caveat was only that they don't just expel students willy nilly, like someone kind of suggested, because they have their own, different motivations not to when possible. And I already fully acknowledged that public schools have to adhere to progressive discipline, as they should.

But all in all, I have no clue what we're really debating here anymore, lol!

I've been assaulted twice, my wife once. Those 3 separate instances resulted in only 1 suspension. My wife was flat out told, after being hit by a student, that is part of the job and deal with it. Essentially me too. The only suspension was because it was a larger fight I was breaking up, no one seemed to cared I was hit while breaking it up. I filed a police report, but he was only suspended because he was involved in a larger fight. Not because he assaulted 2 staff members while it was being broken up.
All 3 of those should be immediate expulsion. Assault any staff member and you're gone. But that isn't how it works, and kids know it.

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

It is about what they are required to do by law and district policy. This is the entire point: public schools adhere to different codes than private schools who can mandate higher academic and behavioural rigour.

Administrators haven't failed in these cases- they are bound by public school policies which are weighted heavily in support of poorly behaving kids. While such policies support the 'offender' and ensure they stay in school and receive an education... the cost is significant: school tone and culture suffer, bullying occurs, teachers become exasperated, etc. 

I think I mentioned that my family are educators, both teachers and administrators? I really do know what the deal is Thirty. And MY entire point was also that public schools and private schools have different codes, and that private schools do indeed mandate higher academic and behavioral rigour. Did you think I was arguing otherwise?? That's what I've been saying all along.
But I TOTALLY disagree that Administrators haven't failed in these cases. That's crazy-talk. Some administrators are great... others are absolute fucking crap. The same can be said for those running districts. 

We're getting closer here.

You won't get an argument from me on the variability of administrators at local or district levels, but I still need you to recognize that even the strongest administrators cannot expel kids when they realize it is the right thing to do like private schools can. Instead, the public school administrator must adhere to the progressive discipline model which removes any professional judgement they might have regarding the individual situation.

Kids can act really poorly and never be in too much trouble. They just need to know what the line is... cross it slightly... and operate there. The 'line' generally allows for a lot of poor behaviour that does not require administrative intervention- defiance, confrontation, academic apathy, and general disrespect among other things.

You're making the same argument that I did re the private schools. I never made the claim I think you think I did? My argument was that private schools certainly do have more power in the decision-making. My caveat was only that they don't just expel students willy nilly, like someone kind of suggested, because they have their own, different motivations not to when possible. And I already fully acknowledged that public schools have to adhere to progressive discipline, as they should.

But all in all, I have no clue what we're really debating here anymore, lol!

I've been assaulted twice, my wife once. Those 3 separate instances resulted in only 1 suspension. My wife was flat out told, after being hit by a student, that is part of the job and deal with it. Essentially me too. The only suspension was because it was a larger fight I was breaking up, no one seemed to cared I was hit while breaking it up. I filed a police report, but he was only suspended because he was involved in a larger fight. Not because he assaulted 2 staff members while it was being broken up.
All 3 of those should be immediate expulsion. Assault any staff member and you're gone. But that isn't how it works, and kids know it.