Re: Legislating from the Bench

by ziggy Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:51 am

Aaron wrote:Do you have a problem with teachers being required to abide by the same standards students are required to abide by?

I have a problem with anyone- including students and teachers- being required to abide by standards that are not consistent with their 4th Amendment rights.

by Aaron Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:56 am

Yes, the supreme court sided with Katz. And in doing so, they also set the two part criteria regarding Expectation of privacy guidelines.

by ziggy Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:57 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:Do you have a problem with teachers being required to abide by the same standards students are required to abide by?

I have a problem with anyone- including students and teachers- being required to abide by standards that are not consistent with their 4th Amendment rights.

It is also legally established that children below the age of legal adult status do not have all the same rights as adults. Juvenile children certainly do not have the same rights as their parents and other adults. So it follows logically that they do not have the same rights as their adult teachers.

by Aaron Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:59 am

A child cannot be questioned or searched without his parents consent. Any rights a minor doesn't have is granted to the parents and/or legal guardians. That didn't stop the court from upholding random drug testing of children as unconstitutionl though.

by ziggy Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:03 am

Aaron wrote:Yes, the supreme court sided with Katz. And in doing so, they also set the two part criteria regarding what is and isn't "reasonable."

And to whatever degree it did that, it helped to set the stage for legal argument that the Constitution means whatever the society of a particular era says or wants it to mean.

by ziggy Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:06 am

I was incorrect about Justice Harlan's opinion in Katz. Harlan wrote a concurring opinion, not a dissenting opinion.

by ziggy Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:08 am

Aaron wrote:A child cannot be questioned or searched without his parents consent. Any rights a minor doesn't have is granted to the parents and/or legal guardians. That didn't stop the court from upholding random drug testing of children as unconstitutionl though.

Can children be randomly drug tested without parental consent?

by TerryRC Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:28 am

Can children be randomly drug tested without parental consent?

Not that I am aware of, unless it is a condition of probation or parole.

by TerryRC Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:34 am

We all have choices to make in life. If you want to work as a public school teacher, where the safety of children (some as young as 3 these days) is in your hands, you should welcome random drug screening.

Ah, yes. The argument that has stripped more rights from the people than any other - "It's for the safety of the children...".

Especially given the fact that it is the school systems that are now calling for increased testing of students and the Supreme court has ruled that testing students is constitutional as drug use is “compelling national concern” and deterring drug use is a “matter of substantial importance.”

Except the testing of students is done on a voluntary basis (to participate in extra-curricular activities) or as a condition of having reasonable cause.

by Aaron Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:19 am

TerryRC wrote:Except the testing of students is done on a voluntary basis (to participate in extra-curricular activities) or as a condition of having reasonable cause.

How is it voluntary if it is a prerequisite to participate in an extra-curricular activity?

by Aaron Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:37 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:A child cannot be questioned or searched without his parents consent. Any rights a minor doesn't have is granted to the parents and/or legal guardians. That didn't stop the court from upholding random drug testing of children as unconstitutionl though.

Can children be randomly drug tested without parental consent?

TerryRC wrote:Not that I am aware of, unless it is a condition of probation or parole.

Yes, they can and are, as a prerequisite for participating in extra curricular activities. And this is being expanded to include post-curricular activates such as band, DECA and other clubs as well. It’s only a matter of time before it’s a requirement of being enrolled in school.

The decision from Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, which legalized testing. Cabell and one other county (Wood but I'm not sure) has already made this testing mandatory. In Putnam County it was "voluntary" but will soon be required.

Given what the court has found in the case below and what they want to do to our children, I don’t think it is unreasonable at all for our teachers to be subjected to the same testing and I doubt a good lawyer would have a hard time making the case and presenting it to a jury.

The Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although a search is presumptively reasonable if carried out pursuant to a warrant issued upon a showing of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment does not require a showing of probable cause in all cases. When "special needs" outside of ordinary law enforcement needs make obtaining a warrant impractical, the Fourth Amendment allows officials to dispense with the formality of obtaining a warrant. Such "special needs" adhere in the public school context, because administrators need to be able to maintain order within the school.
The Fourth Amendment only protects against intrusions upon legitimate expectations of privacy. Central to the Court's analysis in this case was the fact that the "subjects of the policy are (1) children, who (2) have been committed to the temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster." The schools act in loco parentis to the children, and have "such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge... as may be necessary to answer the purposes for which he was employed." Therefore, in the public school context, the reasonableness inquiry "cannot disregard the schools' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children." Public schools require students to undergo vaccinations, vision, hearing, and dermatological screenings, and other examinations. Thus, public school students have a lesser expectation of privacy than members of the general public!
Among public school students, athletes have even less of an expectation of privacy. They suit up in locker rooms before practice. They take communal showers afterward. They subject themselves to additional regulation and medical screenings in order to participate in school sports. "Somewhat like adults who choose to participate in a 'closely regulated industry,' students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy."
Urinalysis intrudes upon a person's privacy in two ways. First, the subject is monitored while providing the actual sample. In the case of the Vernonia policy, boys were visually monitored from behind while providing the sample, while girls were monitored aurally from outside a closed stall. The Court considered this a "negligible" intrusion on the subject's privacy interest. Second, the test discloses personal information concerning "the state of the subject's body and the materials he has ingested." But the school was testing only for the use of drugs, not whether the student was diabetic or pregnant. The results of the test were disclosed only to a small group of school officials and not to law enforcement. And although the Vernonia policy required students to disclose prescription drugs the student was taking in advance, the Court was unwilling to assume that the school district would misuse the medical information disclosed to it by student athletes. The Court thus concluded that the invasion of privacy was "not significant."
By contrast, the schools' interest in deterring drug use among students was truly important. Drug use has a more deleterious effect on adolescents than on adults. The "effects of a drug-infested school are visited not just upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty, as the educational process is disrupted." Drug use by student athletes, moreover, increases the risk of injury during sporting events themselves. The Vernonia student athletes were the leaders of the drug culture at the school; it was "self-evident" to the Court that "a drug problem largely fueled by the 'role model' effect of athletes' drug use, and of particular danger to athletes, is effectively addressed by making sure that athletes do not use drugs." Acton argued that a less intrusive policy would require some individualized suspicion before testing a student for drugs, but the Court observed that the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement did not demand the use of the least intrusive means to achieve the government's aims. Thus, the Vernonia policy was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

source

by SamCogar Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:33 am

ziggy wrote: Unless reasonable cause were first shown, then of course they should fight it.

And of course your "first shown" is ....... a dead kid or a severly handiicapped for the rest of his/her life kid.

School children incur HUNDREDS of accidents each school year. How many of them do you pose are the direct cause of a Teacher's drug induced inability to forsee the obvious and/or react in time to prevent them?

Would a "drug test" of the Teacher immediately after an accident occurs ...... be an "unreasonable cause"?

Legislating from the Bench - Page 2 197570

.

by wvsasha Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:08 pm

SamCogar wrote:
Would a "drug test" of the Teacher immediately after an accident occurs ...... be an "unreasonable cause"?

It would be unreasonable unless the teacher was the direct cause of the situation which lead to the death or injury of the student. If a student attacked another student in the hallway - would you want to drug test all teachers who happened to have a room in that hallway?

by wvsasha Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:24 pm

Aaron wrote:
TerryRC wrote:Except the testing of students is done on a voluntary basis (to participate in extra-curricular activities) or as a condition of having reasonable cause.

How is it voluntary if it is a prerequisite to participate in an extra-curricular activity?

Let me explain....those who participate in extra-curricular activities such as sports/etc do so with the hope and expectation of receiving AWARDS and SCHOLARSHIPS ..... therefore it is only fair to others who are competing to be able to ensure them a fair playing field for those awards. Teachers do not compete against each other for anything therefore one is comparing apples to the orange tree in this issue.

by **Stephanie** Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:50 pm

Teachers don't compete for anything, like better salaries, because that is precisely the way the teachers want it. Teachers unions and rank and file members have melt any time merit pay is mentioned.

If the purpose of drug screening of students who participate in extracurricular activities is to make sure the playing field is "level", they would only test for substances that may give an unfair advantage, like steriods. However, that isn't the case at all.

What kind of advantage would steroids provide a clarinet player? What kind of advantage would pot provide a baseball player?

by SamCogar Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:54 pm

wvsasha wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
Would a "drug test" of the Teacher immediately after an accident occurs ...... be an "unreasonable cause"?

It would be unreasonable unless the teacher was the direct cause of the situation which lead to the death or injury of the student. If a student attacked another student in the hallway - would you want to drug test all teachers who happened to have a room in that hallway?

I see the err in my thinking Sasha, ...... make it legal for the Teachers to sell drugs in the schools.

Then they could use that money for a lot more field trips, ... class trips, ... bowling alley trips, .... buying new videos and movies, .... new playground equipment, .... prizes, games and party favors, .... gizmos and trinkets for Award Day, .... two (2) Classroom Aides for everyone ..... and best of all big raises for all the Teachers whether they do their work or not.

.

by Aaron Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:13 pm

wvsasha wrote:
Aaron wrote:
TerryRC wrote:Except the testing of students is done on a voluntary basis (to participate in extra-curricular activities) or as a condition of having reasonable cause.

How is it voluntary if it is a prerequisite to participate in an extra-curricular activity?

Let me explain....those who participate in extra-curricular activities such as sports/etc do so with the hope and expectation of receiving AWARDS and SCHOLARSHIPS ..... therefore it is only fair to others who are competing to be able to ensure them a fair playing field for those awards. Teachers do not compete against each other for anything therefore one is comparing apples to the orange tree in this issue.

That is not why the supreme court said in their ruling on the case. Read the decision, which I copied and posted. Scholarships and awards wasn’t even mentioned in the decision.

One of the arguments was though was the “athletes were the leaders of the drug culture at the school; it was "self-evident" to the Court that "a drug problem largely fueled by the 'role model' effect of athletes' drug use, and of particular danger to athletes, is effectively addressed by making sure that athletes do not use drugs."

Students do what these they follow do. By that way of thinking, if the cool football coach or hippie english teacher or liberal history teacher are toking up, that is going to increase the likelihood the student will as well and is another reason for teachers to undergo random testing.

by wvsasha Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:26 pm

Aaron wrote:Students do what these they follow do. By that way of thinking, if the cool football coach or hippie english teacher or liberal history teacher are toking up, that is going to increase the likelihood the student will as well and is another reason for teachers to undergo random testing.

But teachers aren't toking in the classroom! And if they are they should be FIRED under current rules and they WOULD BE!!!!

Teachers aren't stupid - they would be asking to be fired if they did drugs in the classroom.

SAM - quit being hyperbolic. It doesn't become you.

STEPHANIE - I actually came up with a rubric that could be used for teachers who wished to be paid on a merit base. It actually could be workable. In a nut shell it provided options for a teacher to choose from to improve their classroom, themselves, and options to provide for their students. Upon successful completion of those options, then the 'pay' would be accorded. Kind of like a bonus but at least incentive to think outside the box. The teacher would sit down at the beginning of the year with a committee (don't know who would be on the committee yet) and decide what they would shoot for with some flexibility for opportunities that sometimes show up at the last moment through out the school year. It's really rough but I think it's better than anything else come up with right now. This way one could choose to be paid on a merit system or just on the regular collect-your-paycheck version. Maybe it's a hybrid merit/bonus system. But at least it's something.

by Aaron Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:46 pm

Teachers don't have to be smoking in the classroom. The amount of interaction outside the classroom that goes on between high school students and teachers and what the students know about who might suprise many.

I've got 2 left in high school and 2 recent graduates. And they KNOW of 2 teachers that are users and there are another 3 to 5 they suspect. As Donnie told me, you can't only smell it on students.

Out of ~50 teachers, that's a pretty high rate and I doubt Poca High School is the exception.

by Aaron Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:42 pm

Perhaps I should have listed the facts of the student random drug testing Sasha. I don't know where you got your information that part of the reason for testing was awards and scholarships, but whoever is selling that is wrong.

Facts
In the mid-1980s, officials in the school district in Vernonia, Oregon, noticed a precipitous rise in drug use among the students of the district. Discipline problems rose in frequency and severity. Student athletes were "the leaders of the drug culture" prevalent among Vernonia's students. At the trial, the high school football and wrestling coaches noted they had witnessed injuries attributable to student drug use.

In response, the school district offered special classes, speakers, and presentations to the students intended to deter drug use. It brought in a specially trained dog to detect drugs, but the drug problem continued unabated. After inviting comment from the parents of the district's students, the district adopted a drug testing plan.

The protocol of the random drug testing program the district initiated was straightforward. All student athletes would be required to submit to the program as a condition of participating in athletics. All athletes were tested at the beginning of the season, and 10% of the athletes were selected randomly every week to provide a urine sample. The samples were collected in a manner that preserved the students' modesty. If a student's sample tested positive, the student was given the option of either undergoing counseling and submitting to six weekly drug tests or sitting out the remainder of that season as well as the following season.

by SamCogar Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:32 am

wvsasha wrote:SAM - quit being hyperbolic. It doesn't become you.

HA, if you Teachers don't give a shit .......... why should I give a shit.

You all control the "vote" in WV and that is why our School System is in the "cesspool" of socio-economic degeneration.

You all will have to "reap more of what you sow" than I ever will.

You all are destroying you future "support base" ...... and then who will be around to supply all your wants and demands?

And you claim intelligence and education? Legislating from the Bench - Page 2 33948

Legislating from the Bench - Page 2 33948

HA, ...... only in your all's own little world of "back patting" and praises for each other.

The deplorable status of our Education System is directly attributable to the mindset of our School Administrators and Teachers. And therin is "the proof in the pudding" ........ and Josephus said it best, to wit:

Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them. (Josephus)

.

.

by SamCogar Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:06 am

wvsasha wrote:
In a nut shell it provided options for a teacher to choose from to improve their classroom, themselves,

Well now, ..... SON OF A GUN, ...... if that doesn't prove without a doubt that the Teachers themselves are soley responsible for whether or not a student is being provided adequate educational instruction to better themselves, ...... nothing will.

And to think, the Teachers have always been blaming the problems on something else ........ when it is they themselves that are "choosing what they want to do in the classroom".

.

by wvsasha Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:16 pm

SamCogar wrote:
wvsasha wrote:
In a nut shell it provided options for a teacher to choose from to improve their classroom, themselves,

Well now, ..... SON OF A GUN, ...... if that doesn't prove without a doubt that the Teachers themselves are soley responsible for whether or not a student is being provided adequate educational instruction to better themselves, ...... nothing will.

And to think, the Teachers have always been blaming the problems on something else ........ when it is they themselves that are "choosing what they want to do in the classroom".

.

ok - looks like i should have been more specific when I said 'choose' what will happen in the classroom.

We all have certain curriculums that we must cover according to state regulations. If you'll go to this page you can search out for any grade level and subject matter to see what we have to cover.

Then we are given textbooks which are adopted by the county but approved by the state first. We must use these (to some extent) but we also have some flexibility to use material in addition to the given texts.

That "added material" is usually up to the teacher and their willingness to go above and beyond to find "bonus material" to enhance the given curriculum.

That "added material" was what I was referring to. Field trips to appropriate destinations, using a new computer program to enhance the learning, taking on teaching students using project-based learning rather than worksheets, taking graduate classes to maintain current knowledge about their field, and so on.

Yes, teachers control HOW something is taught but they still are mandated WHAT will be taught. I was proposing rewarding the HOW not the WHAT. Teachers who are willing to go beyond worksheets and the questions at the end of chapters should be recognized and rewarded with the subtle peer pressure hopefully influencing their laggard-peers to step up to the plate for better instructional methods.

Also - this way teachers can get rewarded for the extra time that goes into these teaching styles the same way that those who choose to coach cheerleaders get paid for their time of watching kids jump around. /snarky commentary on coaches Twisted Evil

by wvsasha Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:19 pm

SamCogar wrote:You all control the "vote" in WV and that is why our School System is in the "cesspool" of socio-economic degeneration.

.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we CONTROL the vote in this state then Blow Hard Joe wouldn't have gotten anywhere near a second term!

Razz

by **Stephanie** Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:16 pm

Sasha,

I'd be interested in seeing it. I do wonder just how receptive teachers will be. Perhaps something along those lines could be used to increase the salaries of good teachers and attract teachers in areas where shortages are faced. The bottom line is, if you can't get the union to accept something it's not likely to be implemented.

by Sponsored content