This post pertains to the drug dealer from the last post.
My email to the VP:
Dear -----,
Last Friday we talked about a certain student's involvement in drug trafficking, and how the police were after his supplier. From the details you gave me, this student is small time in the drug dealing world and his "upline" would be a better catch. Again, I understand that the police are involved here and are being given the authority to call the shots.
But -----, what is our responsibility to the patrons of this school? We have the obligation to provide a safe environment for our students, and it seems to me that would include eliminating drug dealers from the campus when they are identified. What if it gets out that this student was allowed to walk the campus after he had been identified as a known drug dealer? What would the liability of the school and the district be? Would the school and the district be able to use the defense that the police wanted the drug dealer left on campus unfettered?
This whole thing stinks pretty bad, -----. And I'm no genius, but I guarantee you, everyday he's on this campus, there's another recruit to take his place when he gets taken down. The longer we wait to make an example of him the worse the problem gets. And this doesn't even touch on the fact that we are exposing our students to harmful, illegal drugs. What is our moral imperative there?
And his response:
Dear -----,
There is no concrete evidence that points in his direction of supplying drugs other than rumors of usage at Friday night dances at [the skate rink]. We do not have any authority over what our students do on their free time away from school. The police are conducting their investigation. However, as soon as there is a whiff of wrong-doing at school we will do everything we can, but until then I will not take action based on second and third-hand rumors of events that happen over the weekend. Thanks for understanding.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Drug Dealer on Campus?
Well just when I thought I had heard it all.
This new student came to my class in January. A good student, on the ball, getting ahead by doing extra work. The kind of student we all wish filled our desks. He did pretty well for a couple months. Then last week he started slacking off, or perhaps I just began to notice it. For example, on Monday last he was leaning against the wall with his eyes closed. I asked him what was wrong and he gave me a story about the horses breaking through the fence last night and having to round them up and rebuild fences until five in the morning. I asked him if he didn't think that maybe this wouldn't have been a good day to stay home and get some sleep. No, I'm alright, he said.
During the week I noticed more of the same. So I called him over and began to discuss his work ethic with him. He informed me that he was going to go into his family business and he didn't need any schooling. In fact, he went on, he was going to drop out of high school just as soon as he reached the age when he could do so.
Whoa! I continued the conversation with him and he was just determined that his was the right course of action. So I sent the details to the counselor (they're the official kow-towers of the school) and she sent me a courteous "Thank you." I should have known they don't want work.
On Friday of last week the Vice Principal was going by during that period and I was talking to this very student out of the class. I had the student return to the class so I could talk with the VP who asked me to come by his office after school so he could discuss the student with me.
When we were alone in his office he confided to me that this kid was known to be dealing "ecstacy" at the weekly dances at the skate rink. That's right...KNOWN to be a drug dealer by the police. However, the police want to nab the supplier, so they are keeping this kid on ice until they get the big fish.
That's right. A known drug dealer is walking the campus making connections and future deals.
I fretted about this all weekend. I talked it over with my wife. I thought to myself, "What if my children were going to this school? They could conceivably come into contact with this pig either through a class contact or through a friend, and then I might have to deal with my children wondering or even experimenting with drugs."
I returned to the Vice Principal's office today after school and told him that I felt a mix of pity and hatred for this kid when I saw him today in class. Hatred for what he is doing to who knows how many kids on the campus. I told the VP that my own children could be going to this school with a known drug dealer and I just didn't understand how he could still be there. We were interrupted again and again by other teachers with "burning" issues so we couldn't keep our conversation going.
But tomorrow I'm going to meet with both the VP and the Principal to talk about this.
Also, this evening I talked with my father who is a retired Deputy Sheriff. He was a detective, a coroner, and he ran the county jail as a Division Chief, so I figured he'd have some good advice for me. He told me that by the time they take this kid down there will be five more to take his place. So much for getting the big fish.
This new student came to my class in January. A good student, on the ball, getting ahead by doing extra work. The kind of student we all wish filled our desks. He did pretty well for a couple months. Then last week he started slacking off, or perhaps I just began to notice it. For example, on Monday last he was leaning against the wall with his eyes closed. I asked him what was wrong and he gave me a story about the horses breaking through the fence last night and having to round them up and rebuild fences until five in the morning. I asked him if he didn't think that maybe this wouldn't have been a good day to stay home and get some sleep. No, I'm alright, he said.
During the week I noticed more of the same. So I called him over and began to discuss his work ethic with him. He informed me that he was going to go into his family business and he didn't need any schooling. In fact, he went on, he was going to drop out of high school just as soon as he reached the age when he could do so.
Whoa! I continued the conversation with him and he was just determined that his was the right course of action. So I sent the details to the counselor (they're the official kow-towers of the school) and she sent me a courteous "Thank you." I should have known they don't want work.
On Friday of last week the Vice Principal was going by during that period and I was talking to this very student out of the class. I had the student return to the class so I could talk with the VP who asked me to come by his office after school so he could discuss the student with me.
When we were alone in his office he confided to me that this kid was known to be dealing "ecstacy" at the weekly dances at the skate rink. That's right...KNOWN to be a drug dealer by the police. However, the police want to nab the supplier, so they are keeping this kid on ice until they get the big fish.
That's right. A known drug dealer is walking the campus making connections and future deals.
I fretted about this all weekend. I talked it over with my wife. I thought to myself, "What if my children were going to this school? They could conceivably come into contact with this pig either through a class contact or through a friend, and then I might have to deal with my children wondering or even experimenting with drugs."
I returned to the Vice Principal's office today after school and told him that I felt a mix of pity and hatred for this kid when I saw him today in class. Hatred for what he is doing to who knows how many kids on the campus. I told the VP that my own children could be going to this school with a known drug dealer and I just didn't understand how he could still be there. We were interrupted again and again by other teachers with "burning" issues so we couldn't keep our conversation going.
But tomorrow I'm going to meet with both the VP and the Principal to talk about this.
Also, this evening I talked with my father who is a retired Deputy Sheriff. He was a detective, a coroner, and he ran the county jail as a Division Chief, so I figured he'd have some good advice for me. He told me that by the time they take this kid down there will be five more to take his place. So much for getting the big fish.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Great Article
Subsidize what kills you?
By David N. Bass
Social scientists have long documented the cultural costs of divorce and unwed childbearing, but a report released this week reveals a new array of consequences: the economic ones.
Conducted by Georgia College & State University economics professor Benjamin Scafidi along with several pro-family organizations, the study found that U.S. taxpayers spend billions each year on fragmented families. To arrive at an estimated cost, researchers traced the relationship between broken homes and poverty and the resulting increased public costs in criminal justice, welfare measures and education programs.
The total tab: at least $112 billion per year, or over $1 trillion each decade.
Apparently, private decisions about marriage, sex, and childbearing are not so private after all.
It's not a conclusion we want to hear in an individualistic society. Contemporary America puts a high value on personal moral license – so much, in fact, that government subsidizes the results of our behavior. The public costs associated with treating and preventing sexually transmitted diseases are hard to fathom, let alone the millions in taxpayer dollars devoted to abortion. And those are just two examples of many.
That's the trouble with a citizenry that seeks a government solution to every problem. Income redistribution is simply a catalyst for punishing one taxpayer for the poor choices of another (assuming the other even pays taxes). A young man who waits to have sex until he is able to support a wife and child is penalized in favor of his friend who chooses the path of loose living.
Take health care as another example. Government-run care, and the inevitable tax increases associated with it, would have the effect of punishing the healthy since those who exercise and eat right could pay out significant amounts but receive fewer services than couch potatoes and fast food aficionados. Government subsidies always encourage the activity being subsidized.
It's hard to argue that personal decisions about sexual activity and divorce have no impact on anyone beyond the individuals immediately involved. If a taxpayer has to shell out a portion of his income because government subsidizes another's poor choices, it's not unreasonable to expect that taxpayer to want a say in how his friend's activity is regulated.
That's why social conservatives have legitimate cause to fight for the cornerstones of our society: heterosexual marriage, two-parent families and child rearing, to name three. Unlike single-parent families and unwed motherhood, these institutions and activities bring myriad benefits to culture. They don't drain the public coffers but rather create stability and serve as a means of economic growth.
If we're interested in societal progress, look at what works. No clear-thinking social scientist can argue that a stable, two-parent family leads to poverty and crime. On the contrary, research shows that traditional families are the best atmosphere for raising children. Yet in our politically correct era, it's taboo to say heterosexual marriage and family are the best way to go.
In his study, Scafidi is wise enough to connect the dots. Broken families generate greater public costs, while stable families generate greater economic growth. "Marriage is more than a moral or even social institution; it is also an economic one, a generator of social and human capital, especially when it comes to children," he writes.
In a society with massive rates of divorce and cohabitation, it's easy to lose sight of the value the institution of marriage brings to all areas of culture and the negative implications of living arrangements that attempt to mimic traditional matrimony. Many of us ignore that value because it doesn't agree with our lifestyle or beliefs. So be it. That doesn't change the facts.
It's legitimate to discuss and debate whether government's role is to encourage institutions and behaviors – like heterosexual marriage – that benefit society. What should not be up for debate is whether government should subsidize institutions and behaviors that harm society. Nothing could more regressive than government outlays for irresponsible behavior.
That's the crux of the matter. America is swiftly drowning in a sea of decadence, and taxpayer dollars are paying the way for many of the worst offenders. Such a system can't endure for long. We're concerned with rising gas prices and a falling dollar, and rightly so, but what about tax policies that promote cultural decay? Is America strong enough to weather such a financial burden?
Or is it the more likely case that America is subsidizing her own death?
School Budget Woes
I just about fell out of my chair. The school district business guru came to our staff meeting today to tell us all about the district financial problems. It was the usual "not our fault" routine. First was the potential deficit that had been mounting. Then the "action" the district had taken. Then, the terrible flu epidemic that took away funds that they were counting on (you know, less ADA). Finally, the governor delivered the coup de gras with his budget cuts.
Well, I was plum torn between wanting to fall asleep and holding back the tears during this moving discourse. It was truly sad, as if no one there knew financial troubles. But school districts are unique in that they will never have enough, unlike the rest of us who have to meet the hardships by cutting expenses.
The guru talked about certain individuals in the community who help particular schools financially. But while this helps that school, said she, this doesn't help the district. I thought, how does that not help the district? Doesn't that relieve the district of at least some of the funding for that particular school? I think that what she really meant was that the district doesn't get to handle the money first, skimming a little for their own needs.
After about 40 minutes of soul wrenching facts, the guru delivered the answer: raise taxes! But wait, there was more. Teachers could each give $10 a month to the United Way with our own school district as the beneficiary! How the guru could say this with a straight face was indeed a marvel. I wanted to applaud her for it, but that would have been like applauding Hitler as a man of vision.
I think that I'll send out an email to the staff and ask them if, while they are giving money back to the district to help it out of its predicament, maybe they could donate just $1 to my own family fund. I would even go so far as to set up a PayPal account for them to just click and donate. Heck, I'll even give them the credit card option so that they can donate the $1 per month automatically! That way they won't even have to think about it! I can be generous, too.
Well, I was plum torn between wanting to fall asleep and holding back the tears during this moving discourse. It was truly sad, as if no one there knew financial troubles. But school districts are unique in that they will never have enough, unlike the rest of us who have to meet the hardships by cutting expenses.
The guru talked about certain individuals in the community who help particular schools financially. But while this helps that school, said she, this doesn't help the district. I thought, how does that not help the district? Doesn't that relieve the district of at least some of the funding for that particular school? I think that what she really meant was that the district doesn't get to handle the money first, skimming a little for their own needs.
After about 40 minutes of soul wrenching facts, the guru delivered the answer: raise taxes! But wait, there was more. Teachers could each give $10 a month to the United Way with our own school district as the beneficiary! How the guru could say this with a straight face was indeed a marvel. I wanted to applaud her for it, but that would have been like applauding Hitler as a man of vision.
I think that I'll send out an email to the staff and ask them if, while they are giving money back to the district to help it out of its predicament, maybe they could donate just $1 to my own family fund. I would even go so far as to set up a PayPal account for them to just click and donate. Heck, I'll even give them the credit card option so that they can donate the $1 per month automatically! That way they won't even have to think about it! I can be generous, too.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Housebroken Husbands
I know a lot of people disagree with me on this one. It's the whole issue of men being driven around by their wives. Every time I see a woman behind the wheel and her husband (or boyfriend I suppose) in the passenger seat I just have to wonder what's behind this. Why do so many women drive while their husbands sit back like they're being chauffeured in a stretch limo? Is it a sign that we live in a more equal society? Or are men just "in their place" today after all the oppression of the past? Boy, that's great. "Equal" means women now drive their husbands. That must have taken some ambition.
But something else about this that I can speak to as a teacher. Even on the school database of students, the mother "field" is always listed first. She is the one to contact first about anything pertaining to the student, whether discipline related, illness, injury, etc. Isn't that telling. The mother is the responsible one and the father can be contacted if the mother can't be reached, no doubt to tell him to contact the mother. And so it seems that men are fulfilling that role. Don't expect him to be responsible as the head of the household. Agh! What did I say? The man is the head of the household? That's heresy in education today. If I say that too loudly it could earn me a trip to the unemployment line. Or at least to the fringes of "normal" teachers.
How I long for a society that values women, rather than this hogwash that undermines their God-given beauty as mothers.
But something else about this that I can speak to as a teacher. Even on the school database of students, the mother "field" is always listed first. She is the one to contact first about anything pertaining to the student, whether discipline related, illness, injury, etc. Isn't that telling. The mother is the responsible one and the father can be contacted if the mother can't be reached, no doubt to tell him to contact the mother. And so it seems that men are fulfilling that role. Don't expect him to be responsible as the head of the household. Agh! What did I say? The man is the head of the household? That's heresy in education today. If I say that too loudly it could earn me a trip to the unemployment line. Or at least to the fringes of "normal" teachers.
How I long for a society that values women, rather than this hogwash that undermines their God-given beauty as mothers.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Been a while
Well, it's been a while since posting something. What's happened over the last month in the teaching world? Things are still pretty crazy here. The weather is getting warmer so the girl's clothes are getting skimpier. It's probably just me but it seems that every year it's worse.
I remember when I was a 13-14 year old boy attending St. Luke's Catholic School. We all wore uniforms and the girls were pretty conservative, except for the pants that they had the option to wear. But overall the girls were modestly dressed.
Today in our public schools it is absolutely outrageous. I don't know how a 13-14 year old boy can even concentrate on his work, let alone prevent whiplash! And many of the boys don't concentrate. They are too busy taking in the sights. Honestly, I don't understand how educators can allow this, even though they are all women.
Recently, I saw a female teacher with a 7th grade girl in the office telling the counselor that the girl had to put a shirt over her...shirt! Well I guess that's what they call it, although it was more akin to a camisole that a woman might wear to bed. This girl was duly escorted to the counselor's office where she was given a shirt to put on. I thought to myself, "If I were to have said something about the girl's clothes I probably would have been out of a job by the end of the day!
But even though this one case was taken care of in the right way (except that her father should have been contacted), there are still dozens of immodestly dressed girls on the campus. It is a real crime that all men and boys on the campus are supposed to act like this is normal. No one is really supposed to say anything, and for the most part no one does. Again, what am I doing in this profession?
I remember when I was a 13-14 year old boy attending St. Luke's Catholic School. We all wore uniforms and the girls were pretty conservative, except for the pants that they had the option to wear. But overall the girls were modestly dressed.
Today in our public schools it is absolutely outrageous. I don't know how a 13-14 year old boy can even concentrate on his work, let alone prevent whiplash! And many of the boys don't concentrate. They are too busy taking in the sights. Honestly, I don't understand how educators can allow this, even though they are all women.
Recently, I saw a female teacher with a 7th grade girl in the office telling the counselor that the girl had to put a shirt over her...shirt! Well I guess that's what they call it, although it was more akin to a camisole that a woman might wear to bed. This girl was duly escorted to the counselor's office where she was given a shirt to put on. I thought to myself, "If I were to have said something about the girl's clothes I probably would have been out of a job by the end of the day!
But even though this one case was taken care of in the right way (except that her father should have been contacted), there are still dozens of immodestly dressed girls on the campus. It is a real crime that all men and boys on the campus are supposed to act like this is normal. No one is really supposed to say anything, and for the most part no one does. Again, what am I doing in this profession?