Why are all of you fighting so hard to allow your kids to go to parties where there is drinking and fights?
Also, we read all the time about college football & basketball players missing games for violating team rules (footbal and basketball are the only ones really covered by the media).
quote:Originally posted by bballdad1954:
Why are all of you fighting so hard to allow your kids to go to parties where there is drinking and fights?
I would suggest reading this thread for your answer, it is all there.
It is all there. It's about losing "rights" to the school. Since you have never copellingly convinced anyone that playing high school baseball is a right not a priviledge, and you never answered me as to what rights you ae signing away in the COC I am unclear.
However, I am sure no amount of argument or reasoning will change anyone's opinion. People just dig in a fight harder. It's human nature. Good arguments don't persuade, they just create more aguments.
I'm out.
However, I am sure no amount of argument or reasoning will change anyone's opinion. People just dig in a fight harder. It's human nature. Good arguments don't persuade, they just create more aguments.
I'm out.
quote:Originally posted by Doughnutman:
Son is at a party...Couple of hours later he finds his friend drunk...
My son faced a very similar situation. By the time he did get to a party, his friend was really drunk. A short time later, the kid was in the can wretching and passed out. My sober son babysat him, talked to him, etc for 30 minutes before my son carried the kid to my son's car and took the kid home. Mom took him to the hospital and the kid's level was a .275.
My wife's reaction? My son did the best he could do when faced with this situation for the very first time, although he should have called us or the kid's mom earlier in the process.
My initial reaction? He's got a COC to follow and shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Hindsight being 20/20, if my son hadn't gone to the party, who knows what would have happened to his friend.
Sometimes you have to say up with the rules and do what is right, consequences be ****ed. It's a tough call, particularly when you have a school administrator who may become judge and jury.
The COC seemed a bit intrusive at first, however i understand both sides of the discussion. We just hope to have taught son well enough to make wise decisions in his choice of friends so that he is never comprimised by the actions of others either before or after any event or party or concert or ....................if something down the line should happen, we all know the rules. Fair or not.
quote:Originally posted by bballdad1954:
Since you have never copellingly convinced anyone that playing high school baseball is a right not a priviledge, and you never answered me as to what rights you ae signing away in the COC I am unclear.
Comprehension can be elusive.
Some pretty naieve people on here if they think that teenagers always make the right decisions and never go or do things that they shouldn't. Even if your son is perfect, maybe his friends aren't. I know my son isn't and will make a few bonehead decisions. COC's only protect the administration from lawsuits and headaches. They are not in your childs best interest. Keep signing away your rights sheeple.
Bubble wrap and blinders for everyone.
Bubble wrap and blinders for everyone.
All I want from the school district is educate my kids without wrapping it in political bias. I don't want them teaching my kids their morals or ethics. Just teach my kids the courses they're signed up for.quote:I think the community wanted schools to do more than basic math english and science.
My son won a univeral health care debate. He argued against it. The loser got an A for presentation without providing any written data to back his arguments. My son came with data. The teacher gave him an Incomplete until he provided written data for every point he made.
My daughter figured out teacher's very early in her high school career. She told me she told them what they wanted to hear to get an A rather than fight for her principles and get a B.
Mr. Donut, I believe it is you that holds the niaive distinction. Might want to take your blinders off if all you believe is that an athletic codes primary purpose is to protect schools from litigation. There is a difference between making good decisions and being perfect. You do have a choice.
Playball,
The only reason that schools now have a COC is because of lawsuits and complaints of parents because some kids got one penalty and others didn't. Your/my/and everyone else's kid is going to make decisions based on their upbringing. The COC is merely a way to ease the administrations life. Just like no weapons in school. I know a kindergarten kid who got suspended for 1 day because he brought a screw driver to class. He got a reduced sentence. He should have got 3 days. They had to have a hearing to reduce it. He brought it because the day before, his teacher was trying to fix something and said, "I wish I had a screwdriver to fix this."
Common sense isn't allowed anymore in schools. The COC is merely an extension of these policies that were put in place to protect the schools from lawsuits. No other reason.
As to a choice, there is none. Sign or don't play. No choice at all for a kid who loves the game.
The only reason that schools now have a COC is because of lawsuits and complaints of parents because some kids got one penalty and others didn't. Your/my/and everyone else's kid is going to make decisions based on their upbringing. The COC is merely a way to ease the administrations life. Just like no weapons in school. I know a kindergarten kid who got suspended for 1 day because he brought a screw driver to class. He got a reduced sentence. He should have got 3 days. They had to have a hearing to reduce it. He brought it because the day before, his teacher was trying to fix something and said, "I wish I had a screwdriver to fix this."
Common sense isn't allowed anymore in schools. The COC is merely an extension of these policies that were put in place to protect the schools from lawsuits. No other reason.
As to a choice, there is none. Sign or don't play. No choice at all for a kid who loves the game.
quote:Originally posted by CPLZ:
Comprehension can be elusive.
So can humility.
Sound a lot like one of those Urban Intellectual Democrats sneering down at those "who just don't know what's good for them."
This whole thing boils down to those who believe that living in a free society means that no one has a right to make rules that restrict your freedom no matter what the cost to society in general and those who believe that in order to live in a community (in this case a school) with others, such total freedom is not acceptable.
Regardless of what our new fearless leader here tells us, it is not a right to play on the baseball team...it has been tested by our courts who, not CPLZ decide. Too, no one is forcing these kids to sign the COC. Given the choice of 1)not participating on the school team or 2)agreeing to follow the code or 3)signing and not planning on following the code, kids usually pick the second or third option. They are exercising their freedom right there.
If the Lawrence Phillips' of the world had been held to a COC at Nebraska and other places perhaps he wouldn't have thought he could get away with the behavior he exhibited. Not to mention the very real fact that so many of the Super-star Athletes and Celebreties in our country seem to think they are above the law, you'd think that people would generally think additional discipline amongst them at younger ages would be a good thing.
Players who hold athletic scholarships at our Colleges and Universities routinely lose them because of off the court or out-of school problems. Heck if they aren't at school isn't it their right to get involved in drugs, gang activity and beating people up? You'd think that by now one of them would have been in court challenging it. Oh, I forgot...didn't Maurice Clarrett do that and lose?
Well said fastball
quote:Originally posted by FastballDad:
Regardless of what our new fearless leader here tells us, it is not a right to play on the baseball team...
You are dead wrong on that. All students have the right to participate in school sponsored extracurricular activities. I defy you to name one person or group of people that has never had the right to participate in extracurricular activities?
quote:Originally posted by FastballDad:quote:Originally posted by CPLZ:
Comprehension can be elusive.
So can humility.
Sound a lot like one of those Urban Intellectual Democrats sneering down at those "who just don't know what's good for them."
As well evidenced by your comment. Mine was directed at a person who seemed bent on agitation rather than discussion.
Let's keep the name calling to a minimum please, consider it a warning.
There is quite a distinction between the parental rights of a HS student and the collegiate rights of an adult. This discussion has remained focused on the parental and HS aspect of it, so collegiate examples are not germane or analogous.
Fastball Dad,
Do you realize what you are saying? The COC means nothing. Kids are going to do what they are going to do. The kids that pick your 2nd or third choice are going to act that way regardless of any paper they sign due to how they were raised. That isn't freedom of choice. The mere fact that they have to sign it to play is no choice at all. It is just making kids better at being sneaky and lying to people in authority. It teaches them how to get around the rules of society, not follow them. No traits that I encourage in my kids. The Clarrett's and Phillip's of the world are going to do bad things no matter what piece of paper they sign. They did it anyway instead of making millions of dollars in the NFL.
I don't know the math, but I will bet that the percent of scholly athletes that get kicked off of teams due to conduct is less than 1%. Probably a lot less. And the kids in college are adults. They should be much better at making decisions than 15/16 year olds. Like I have said before, there is a reason that minors have a different set of laws than adults.
Do you realize what you are saying? The COC means nothing. Kids are going to do what they are going to do. The kids that pick your 2nd or third choice are going to act that way regardless of any paper they sign due to how they were raised. That isn't freedom of choice. The mere fact that they have to sign it to play is no choice at all. It is just making kids better at being sneaky and lying to people in authority. It teaches them how to get around the rules of society, not follow them. No traits that I encourage in my kids. The Clarrett's and Phillip's of the world are going to do bad things no matter what piece of paper they sign. They did it anyway instead of making millions of dollars in the NFL.
I don't know the math, but I will bet that the percent of scholly athletes that get kicked off of teams due to conduct is less than 1%. Probably a lot less. And the kids in college are adults. They should be much better at making decisions than 15/16 year olds. Like I have said before, there is a reason that minors have a different set of laws than adults.
The whole COC thing obviously bothers me. I guess it comes down to my beliefs. Nobody should ever be punished because of what somebody else did. And leaving my kids fate in the hands of a school official whose only loyalty is to the school and avoiding lawsuits rubs me the wrong way. I don't believe it takes a village to raise a child. I belive it takes a hut. I will take care of my hut and you take care of yours and the village will be just fine. The village may need me on occasion and that is OK, but stay out of my hut.
quote:Originally posted by FastballDad:
Sound a lot like one of those Urban Intellectual Democrats sneering down at those "who just don't know what's good for them."
Aside from just the downright nasty tone of that comment, if that sentiment truly is so repulsive, then why in the world would you stand in favor of a COC instituted by a school that essentially is directed at people,"who just don't know what's good for them."? Isn't that what the school is saying, that they know better what our children need?
My position is that the school is helping people, "who just don't know what's good for them", with the COC, and we don't need the help.
Yours positions seem very contradictory. You chide one person for something you support another for.
Whatever happened to accountability...something that's sorely lacking in today's society. I have no problem with COCs that clearly identify the conduct expected as well as the conduct which will be punished and to what extent. It's about time parents reinforce the concept of taking responsibility for one's own actions/inactions instead of blaming the rules and rule makers. I find nothing unreasonable with signing a document which exists for the athlete's own well-being. After all, we're talking about conduct that a responsible young athlete should not be engaging in with or without a COC.
First, I believe that the remark "comprehension can be elusive" was as disrespectful as any made. And now same person who made that remark has given me a warning on name calling. I guess I inferred that you were calling a poster(s) dense with that comment.
Secondly I apologize if my comment regarding those who sneer down on others for not getting it as they see it offended anyone. It is that tone I was addressing not the political side of it (but I couldn't resist the jab at someone who I thought wouldn't like being labeled that way.)
Doughnut... I'm not saying that it is right that they may choose the option of signing something they have no intent on following through on. It seems obvious that many do so. We do have the right to make wrong decisions and there is freedom in that. To me I would like to see kids sign it and do it......I'd have more respect for a kid who wouldn't sign and went elsewhere to play if they couldn't abide by it. At least that way they wouldn't be hurting their team and teammates if they were being counted on as your are when you are part of that team.
In the cases of Phillips and Clarrett, it isn't the signing of the COC that would have made them conform to society's norms, but teeth behind it that perhaps never would have allowed them to get to that point. Yes 15 & 16 year olds are going to make mistakes..I did, my kids did and a lot of others as well. And on a very idealistic (not sure how realistic) level I can see why someone may believe perhaps only the parents and the law should be dealing with this behavior. But the point is...when you become part of something, you are no longer thinking only of yourself.
Secondly I apologize if my comment regarding those who sneer down on others for not getting it as they see it offended anyone. It is that tone I was addressing not the political side of it (but I couldn't resist the jab at someone who I thought wouldn't like being labeled that way.)
Doughnut... I'm not saying that it is right that they may choose the option of signing something they have no intent on following through on. It seems obvious that many do so. We do have the right to make wrong decisions and there is freedom in that. To me I would like to see kids sign it and do it......I'd have more respect for a kid who wouldn't sign and went elsewhere to play if they couldn't abide by it. At least that way they wouldn't be hurting their team and teammates if they were being counted on as your are when you are part of that team.
In the cases of Phillips and Clarrett, it isn't the signing of the COC that would have made them conform to society's norms, but teeth behind it that perhaps never would have allowed them to get to that point. Yes 15 & 16 year olds are going to make mistakes..I did, my kids did and a lot of others as well. And on a very idealistic (not sure how realistic) level I can see why someone may believe perhaps only the parents and the law should be dealing with this behavior. But the point is...when you become part of something, you are no longer thinking only of yourself.
quote:You are dead wrong on that. All students have the right to participate in school sponsored extracurricular activities. I defy you to name one person or group of people that has never had the right to participate in extracurricular activities?
I can name them..They're called flunkies. Flunkies aren't allowed to participate in extra curricular activities including sports. If they don't maintain a C average, after they go on academic notice for the first time, they're done...Ineligible..Kaput. At least that's how it works in our state.
Playing baseball or any after school activity is a privelidge, not a right.
quote:Might want to take your blinders off if all you believe is that an athletic codes primary purpose is to protect schools from litigation
What other motivation would there be for wanting to take over to raise our kids other than power and comntrol?
These code of conduct rules are a joke. All it does is take away from parenting and let government dictate how to raise your kids.
And while government is creating more zero tolerance policy laws to put blame on the parents or blame kids as an extension of others wrongdoings when their kids screw up, they also hancuff parents into allowing them to disciplne their kids when they screw up and the kids can call 911 or family services at the drop of a hat if their parents dare try to discipline their kids.
Maybe the schools ought to wake up and let a kid have a good fistfight in school and let these kids get it out of their system. Instead, the government makes laws on top of laws so instead of a fistfight to get it out of their system, they let their anger build up and the kid goes to school with a gun instead.
No thanks, I didn't need government raising my kids. Especially when they pickpocket me at every turn they get. You'd think if they want to raise my kids, they'd pay me for the priveledge. Just teach them their schoolwork and give them the tools to function as adults. I'll do the rest.
However, since the players sign a COC, they gotta play by the rules. If they break them, then oh, well. They gotta pay the consequences.
What bothers me is that the entire student body does not sign a COC---thus athletes can only attend athletes parties if they want to be safe-- that sure does a great deal of good for a HS kids social life.
And again I ask the question which everyone seems to want to dance around---where are the parents in all of this? Do they not have any resposnsiblity here ?
Here in CT the parents are allowed to let their children drink in the house
Let me give you a real good one---going back to my youth in the days before Gatorade and Vitamin drinks,(the stone age in the '50's) I had an old school coach who recommended I have a beer when I went home after the game ( I was in my teens). It was his belief that beer replenished the system better than cold soda etc. My parents also had a old time theory as I got older in my teens--"If you are going to drink then drink at home where it doen't bother anyone"
Take away the mystique and you do not drink outside the home
And again I ask the question which everyone seems to want to dance around---where are the parents in all of this? Do they not have any resposnsiblity here ?
Here in CT the parents are allowed to let their children drink in the house
Let me give you a real good one---going back to my youth in the days before Gatorade and Vitamin drinks,(the stone age in the '50's) I had an old school coach who recommended I have a beer when I went home after the game ( I was in my teens). It was his belief that beer replenished the system better than cold soda etc. My parents also had a old time theory as I got older in my teens--"If you are going to drink then drink at home where it doen't bother anyone"
Take away the mystique and you do not drink outside the home
There has been a lot of really good discussion on this topic and I am glad that there are people making very good points on both sides of the argument. I truly think that having intelligent people on both sides of an argument is what has made this country so great.
I resisted the urge to put my 2 cents in to this point since I'm not sure I could add much to either side of the argument, but I'll give it a shot anyways.
1.) One of the major flaws of our school system as far as discipline goes is the blanket rules that have been set up. For example, if a kid comes to a party, sees alcohol and leaves, he should not be punished in the same way (or at all) as someone who was there and drinking. That kid should in fact be commended for making a good choice. The kid who knows there is drinking at a party and chooses to stay there anyways has, in my opinion, made a poor choice. It is not a gravely poor choice like the kid who chooses to drink at the party or drink and drive home. Those three situations all should be handled differently. Unfortunately, external pressures have taken away the school's ability to look at things on a case by case basis.
2.)As a coach, I view it as my job to not only teach baseball, but to help students academically, to teach them sportsmanship, and to teach them how behave on and off the field. If some people feel this is overstepping my bounds, so be it, but honestly when I think back to my high school days, the influence my coaches had on my character development was second only to that of my family. Unfortunately some kids don't have strong family support, which makes the influence they get in school even more valuable. If there was no COC at our school, and I found out that one of my kids was involved in a drinking party or was in trouble with the law in any other way, you better believe I would levy some kind of suspension depending on that athlete's involvement. Again, it would depend on the situation and what exactly happened. Hopefully the kid would use it as a learning experience and would benefit from it long term.
I'm sure some people will think that would be overstepping a coaches boundaries, but I believe that since 99.9999% of the athletes we coach will never play for money, character is the most important thing they will gain from athletics. So in summary I have no problem with a COC being enforced, but I wish there was more room for the administration to look at each situation as an independent event and take the facts of each event into account, but I fear those days are past us.
I resisted the urge to put my 2 cents in to this point since I'm not sure I could add much to either side of the argument, but I'll give it a shot anyways.
1.) One of the major flaws of our school system as far as discipline goes is the blanket rules that have been set up. For example, if a kid comes to a party, sees alcohol and leaves, he should not be punished in the same way (or at all) as someone who was there and drinking. That kid should in fact be commended for making a good choice. The kid who knows there is drinking at a party and chooses to stay there anyways has, in my opinion, made a poor choice. It is not a gravely poor choice like the kid who chooses to drink at the party or drink and drive home. Those three situations all should be handled differently. Unfortunately, external pressures have taken away the school's ability to look at things on a case by case basis.
2.)As a coach, I view it as my job to not only teach baseball, but to help students academically, to teach them sportsmanship, and to teach them how behave on and off the field. If some people feel this is overstepping my bounds, so be it, but honestly when I think back to my high school days, the influence my coaches had on my character development was second only to that of my family. Unfortunately some kids don't have strong family support, which makes the influence they get in school even more valuable. If there was no COC at our school, and I found out that one of my kids was involved in a drinking party or was in trouble with the law in any other way, you better believe I would levy some kind of suspension depending on that athlete's involvement. Again, it would depend on the situation and what exactly happened. Hopefully the kid would use it as a learning experience and would benefit from it long term.
I'm sure some people will think that would be overstepping a coaches boundaries, but I believe that since 99.9999% of the athletes we coach will never play for money, character is the most important thing they will gain from athletics. So in summary I have no problem with a COC being enforced, but I wish there was more room for the administration to look at each situation as an independent event and take the facts of each event into account, but I fear those days are past us.
quote:One of the major flaws of our school system as far as discipline goes is the blanket rules that have been set up. For example, if a kid comes to a party, sees alcohol and leaves, he should not be punished in the same way (or at all) as someone who was there and drinking. That kid should in fact be commended for making a good choice. The kid who knows there is drinking at a party and chooses to stay there anyways has, in my opinion, made a poor choice. It is not a gravely poor choice like the kid who chooses to drink at the party or drink and drive home. Those three situations all should be handled differently. Unfortunately, external pressures have taken away the school's ability to look at things on a case by case basis.
And you know what happens next, right? Whenever a party gets busted, the response will be "I just showed up and I was leaving when I saw _____" whether that person had been there the whole time or not.
I know that there are a couple of kids from my high school who are lucky we have a Code of Conduct that must be signed. If it were left up to the coaches, they would have been gone right away rather than suspended.
My experience in education is that after interviewing the kids who were there, those things will get sorted out in the wash. No doubt the administration will have to make tough decisions, but they get compensated well, they should have to make tough decisions, not just ones that are predetermined rules tell them to make.
As far as the coaches booting kids right away, that would certainly be their right if there were not COC, but I personally believe that kids will make mistakes, they should be punished for them, but they should also be given a chance to show that they have learned from them.
As far as the coaches booting kids right away, that would certainly be their right if there were not COC, but I personally believe that kids will make mistakes, they should be punished for them, but they should also be given a chance to show that they have learned from them.
quote:Originally posted by BCRockets:
As far as the coaches booting kids right away, that would certainly be their right if there were not COC, but I personally believe that kids will make mistakes, they should be punished for them, but they should also be given a chance to show that they have learned from them.
IMO, athletics was viewed as a vehicle for kids to work-out maturity issues, emotional, social, etc..
quote:Take away the mystique and you do not drink outside the home
If more people figured that out, you wouldn't have all the binge drinking that goes on. By allowing to let an 18-19 yr old to have a beer or two in the house and not make a big deal of it and get them to realize they can't drive drunk because they got a better chance beating a murder rap than a DWI, these kids might calm down a bit and realize that drinking isn't that big a deal.
Now this approach might not get thru those who are irresponsible and reckless to begin with but you might rope those in who are good kids who might get caught up in a bad situation otherwise but has a little responsibility from experience.
Unfortunately, the government wants to go in your house as well and control thtat too. Yes, it's happening.
quote:Originally posted by BCRockets:
For example, if a kid comes to a party, sees alcohol and leaves, he should not be punished in the same way (or at all) as someone who was there and drinking. That kid should in fact be commended for making a good choice.
There have been cases where members of one team are included with the investigation of members of another team/group because they are known associates.
I agree with Bulldog19 - if you leave an opening for them, every kid is going to claim that they were 'just leaving' or that they didn't consume.
Like the old saying goes - if you lay with dogs, you'll get fleas.
CPLZ: Nice cheapshot after I left the conversation.
You still haven't shown that extracirriculars are a right and not a priviledge even in the face of many posts that have shown the opposite is true. You think I lack comprehension, I think you are just stubborn and won't admit you are wrong on the rights vs priviledge issue. COc's only prohibit the right to breaks rules and laws voluntarily agreed to
to, rights you don't have in the first place.
The COC' are NOT raising your kids. They are saying if you break laws and community standards, you lose certain privileges. You had the chance to raise your kids to not break laws, drink at parties etc. So let them drink at home, they don't go to parties, no COC gets involved, no problem. You raised your kid the way you wanted to.
I was at a high school baseball game and s****r game last noght. I talked to some of the kids watcvhing the games. The COC at our school is for ALL extra cirricular activies, including band and chess club. It does differentiate consequences for drinking or just being there.
You still haven't shown that extracirriculars are a right and not a priviledge even in the face of many posts that have shown the opposite is true. You think I lack comprehension, I think you are just stubborn and won't admit you are wrong on the rights vs priviledge issue. COc's only prohibit the right to breaks rules and laws voluntarily agreed to
to, rights you don't have in the first place.
The COC' are NOT raising your kids. They are saying if you break laws and community standards, you lose certain privileges. You had the chance to raise your kids to not break laws, drink at parties etc. So let them drink at home, they don't go to parties, no COC gets involved, no problem. You raised your kid the way you wanted to.
I was at a high school baseball game and s****r game last noght. I talked to some of the kids watcvhing the games. The COC at our school is for ALL extra cirricular activies, including band and chess club. It does differentiate consequences for drinking or just being there.
In many states, parents can allow their kids to drink in their own home - you still can't let your kid's FRIENDS drink in your home though, which is what is getting more and more parents in trouble these days. Illinois is one of those states by the way - you can let your kid drink in your own home while you are present. So have at it.
If you want to allow 18 or 19 year olds to drink, you're going to have to work to change the drinking laws which say you have to be 21 (at least in this state). There's a "right" which has been in constant flux in our society... you have the right to drink, you just have to be the "right" age!
As for letting kids drink at home to remove the mystique, I think that's a **** shoot. I was raised in a family where nobody cared if we drank at home, family parties, with friends, whatever, from a very early age - I'm talking 10 or 11 years old. It just wasn't a big deal in my extended family. In subsequent years, I had two cousins killed in drunk driving accidents before they reached legal drinking age, four who became alcoholics - one died of alcoholism, one almost died - and the rest of us turned out OK. Some still drink to varying degrees, others quit, some never did drink once they became adults. That's a representative sampling of 18 first cousins, all raised by siblings who looked at drinking as pretty much a harmless activity - just don't puke in the car, was about the only rule that governed drinking. So did it work? "Yes", "kind of", and "not really", I guess would be the answer. Would it have hurt any of us NOT to drink before it was legal? Not even a little bit. Oh, and the two cousins who were killed - both state champion wrestlers who frequently enjoyed a beer with their coach at his house after a good match.
Some are arguing that the COC is usurping parental rights - but parents don't have the right to allow their kids to break the law. I think the conversation needs to stay with the concept of the COC, which is to apply a level of consequence to behavior which goes beyond that of the legal system. Should schools have the right to remove students from activities based on their behavior outside of the school setting, is really the question.
Someone also suggested that the COC should apply to all students. They actually have tried that in the courts and found it unconstitutional - because attending school is a right afforded to all. Extracurriculars are, however, a privilege and participants can be excluded based upon a separate set of rules that apply to those activities.
Here are a couple of quotes from the IHSA website regarding the purpose of interscholastic sports:
Opportunity for boys and girls to represent their school and community as they participate in interscholastic activities is a privilege unique to young people in American education
IHSA believes each individual's involvement and acceptance of personal responsibility is critical.
IHSA believes all persons involved in interscholastic athletics and activities are expected to be positive role models.
High school sports are not a right - your school could decide tomorrow to drop all sports at all levels and no one's rights would have been violated. Interscholastic sports are an off-shoot of the educational goals and purposes of the school system. They are not stand-alone programs that function independently of the school. If you don't want the school making rules to govern your child's behavior as it applies to the team, then don't participate in high school sports. It's that simple. Find a team that fits your needs and play.
If you want to allow 18 or 19 year olds to drink, you're going to have to work to change the drinking laws which say you have to be 21 (at least in this state). There's a "right" which has been in constant flux in our society... you have the right to drink, you just have to be the "right" age!
As for letting kids drink at home to remove the mystique, I think that's a **** shoot. I was raised in a family where nobody cared if we drank at home, family parties, with friends, whatever, from a very early age - I'm talking 10 or 11 years old. It just wasn't a big deal in my extended family. In subsequent years, I had two cousins killed in drunk driving accidents before they reached legal drinking age, four who became alcoholics - one died of alcoholism, one almost died - and the rest of us turned out OK. Some still drink to varying degrees, others quit, some never did drink once they became adults. That's a representative sampling of 18 first cousins, all raised by siblings who looked at drinking as pretty much a harmless activity - just don't puke in the car, was about the only rule that governed drinking. So did it work? "Yes", "kind of", and "not really", I guess would be the answer. Would it have hurt any of us NOT to drink before it was legal? Not even a little bit. Oh, and the two cousins who were killed - both state champion wrestlers who frequently enjoyed a beer with their coach at his house after a good match.
Some are arguing that the COC is usurping parental rights - but parents don't have the right to allow their kids to break the law. I think the conversation needs to stay with the concept of the COC, which is to apply a level of consequence to behavior which goes beyond that of the legal system. Should schools have the right to remove students from activities based on their behavior outside of the school setting, is really the question.
Someone also suggested that the COC should apply to all students. They actually have tried that in the courts and found it unconstitutional - because attending school is a right afforded to all. Extracurriculars are, however, a privilege and participants can be excluded based upon a separate set of rules that apply to those activities.
Here are a couple of quotes from the IHSA website regarding the purpose of interscholastic sports:
Opportunity for boys and girls to represent their school and community as they participate in interscholastic activities is a privilege unique to young people in American education
IHSA believes each individual's involvement and acceptance of personal responsibility is critical.
IHSA believes all persons involved in interscholastic athletics and activities are expected to be positive role models.
High school sports are not a right - your school could decide tomorrow to drop all sports at all levels and no one's rights would have been violated. Interscholastic sports are an off-shoot of the educational goals and purposes of the school system. They are not stand-alone programs that function independently of the school. If you don't want the school making rules to govern your child's behavior as it applies to the team, then don't participate in high school sports. It's that simple. Find a team that fits your needs and play.
quote:Originally posted by Ratboy:
There have been cases where members of one team are included with the investigation of members of another team/group because they are known associates.
I agree with Bulldog19 - if you leave an opening for them, every kid is going to claim that they were 'just leaving' or that they didn't consume.
Like the old saying goes - if you lay with dogs, you'll get fleas.
You would be amazed at how much information kids will give up. In most cases administration can sort out exactly what happens.
I am all for punishing the kid's poor decisions. However, if it can be determined that the kid made the correct decision by leaving when they realized what was going on, they could not have possibly made a better decision than that? IMO if it can be determined that the kid made a good choice, no punishment should be levied.
quote:Originally posted by mythreesons:
High school sports are not a right - your school could decide tomorrow to drop all sports at all levels and no one's rights would have been violated.
If the school decides today, that your son cannot play baseball, with no reason or explanation, have his rights been violated?
I'll answer the question in the spirit it was asked...
Sure, if he's the only one. Now he's being discriminated against... that's a horse of a different color. But the important points are 1.) he's the ONLY ONE and 2.) there is NO REASON GIVEN. Telling my son he's off the team for violating team rules, and anyone else who does likewise is treated the same, is not the same thing. My son has the right to be afforded the same opportunity as anyone else and in your scenario he's being denied THAT RIGHT. Not the RIGHT to play baseball, but the RIGHT to be treated equally.
Look at our history with Title IX - schools either had to decide to a.) let the girls play with the boys b.) create a like team for the girls or c.) drop the sport all together. Any of those remedies were OK and, it was decided by the courts, violated no one's rights.
If the high school decides tomorrow to drop the team, they can do it and no rights have been violated. (Now they would have to answer some questions from the taxpaying community - but in this climate you may get more supporters for the idea than detractors.)
Here's another one for you - homeschoolers. The state of Illinois has determined in the courts numerous times (our school has had a number of challenges) that a public school can choose whether or not they will allow homeschooled students to participate in interscholastic sports... by definition, a privilege. They cannot, however, deny that same student the right to an ala-carte education - in other words, they can take any classes they choose at the high school without being a full time student... that is their right.
Again - being a student is a right, being an athlete is a privilege.
Sure, if he's the only one. Now he's being discriminated against... that's a horse of a different color. But the important points are 1.) he's the ONLY ONE and 2.) there is NO REASON GIVEN. Telling my son he's off the team for violating team rules, and anyone else who does likewise is treated the same, is not the same thing. My son has the right to be afforded the same opportunity as anyone else and in your scenario he's being denied THAT RIGHT. Not the RIGHT to play baseball, but the RIGHT to be treated equally.
Look at our history with Title IX - schools either had to decide to a.) let the girls play with the boys b.) create a like team for the girls or c.) drop the sport all together. Any of those remedies were OK and, it was decided by the courts, violated no one's rights.
If the high school decides tomorrow to drop the team, they can do it and no rights have been violated. (Now they would have to answer some questions from the taxpaying community - but in this climate you may get more supporters for the idea than detractors.)
Here's another one for you - homeschoolers. The state of Illinois has determined in the courts numerous times (our school has had a number of challenges) that a public school can choose whether or not they will allow homeschooled students to participate in interscholastic sports... by definition, a privilege. They cannot, however, deny that same student the right to an ala-carte education - in other words, they can take any classes they choose at the high school without being a full time student... that is their right.
Again - being a student is a right, being an athlete is a privilege.
Here's where your argument goes off track.
Rights can come with stipulations...
The right to vote, stipulations of residency and age.
Government throws around the word privilege, but the true meaning is rights.
Schools cannot deny a student the opportunity to participate, which makes it a right. They can stipulate, attendance at the school (home schooling), grades, or COC compliance. That does not make it a privilege, just a right with stipulations.
Your child has the right to participate in all extracurricular activities and cannot be excluded for no reason. A privilege, by definition, does not need reasons for denial.
You have a right to a drivers license, providing aptitude is demonstrated with miniumum age/education requirements. The government stipulates that you may lose the "privilege" by violating specific laws. The truth is, they can revoke your right to drive. It is a right because they need to show cause for restriction, a privilege requires no cause.
Rights can come with stipulations...
The right to vote, stipulations of residency and age.
Government throws around the word privilege, but the true meaning is rights.
Schools cannot deny a student the opportunity to participate, which makes it a right. They can stipulate, attendance at the school (home schooling), grades, or COC compliance. That does not make it a privilege, just a right with stipulations.
Your child has the right to participate in all extracurricular activities and cannot be excluded for no reason. A privilege, by definition, does not need reasons for denial.
You have a right to a drivers license, providing aptitude is demonstrated with miniumum age/education requirements. The government stipulates that you may lose the "privilege" by violating specific laws. The truth is, they can revoke your right to drive. It is a right because they need to show cause for restriction, a privilege requires no cause.
Ok so right or privilege I don't care really. A violation of a code of conduct is plenty of REASON to not allow one to represent the school in extracurricular activity.
Privlidege= Rights with stipulations.
That was real easy....we could have saved 6 pages of fun with that economical statement.
That was real easy....we could have saved 6 pages of fun with that economical statement.
.
Six pages! Wow!
Anyone up for a few more than that?
Kids learn when they think they are just having fun! The trick, of course, is to make them think they're having fun. This puzzling puzzle book includes:
All activities are designed to reinforce that a child is capable of success and to affirm an optimistic attitude.
This PC (Pretty Cool) book introduces Hillary Hugging Hope, Oscar Overflowing Optimism, and Sammy Surely Successful, the three characters that offer Kids at Hope language and concepts to children in a fun puzzle book format that will send their puzzlement packing!
This puzzle book is delightful for children ages 8-11 or maybe even older...a lot older!
Remember...Yes we can! Yes we will! Yes we did!
And don't bother sneaking peeks in the back looking for answers cuz' all the answers are right!
Six pages! Wow!
Anyone up for a few more than that?
Kids learn when they think they are just having fun! The trick, of course, is to make them think they're having fun. This puzzling puzzle book includes:
- Wacky word searches where mizspelings are a-ok!
Amazing mazes where every path leads to freedom!
Gratifying games where the losers are even winners!
Dot-to-dot and dot-to-whatever!
And more!
All activities are designed to reinforce that a child is capable of success and to affirm an optimistic attitude.
This PC (Pretty Cool) book introduces Hillary Hugging Hope, Oscar Overflowing Optimism, and Sammy Surely Successful, the three characters that offer Kids at Hope language and concepts to children in a fun puzzle book format that will send their puzzlement packing!
This puzzle book is delightful for children ages 8-11 or maybe even older...a lot older!
Remember...Yes we can! Yes we will! Yes we did!
And don't bother sneaking peeks in the back looking for answers cuz' all the answers are right!
Let kids be kids.
3 strikes and your out...thats the name of the game!
Every Coach has a different slant on that theory. Let them handle it.
The very best coach in the state has handled these issues flawlessly and I have witnessed it.
Maybe he should teach a class for all you do-gooder, politically correct ding-a-lings!
Anytime some socially concious individual writes up his or her own boiler plate COC agenda there will be plenty of disagreement. Our society has alway's been open to the individual. We are born in hospital's not in ovens on a cookie sheet and we are raised by vastly different standard's, not one. God forbid the J. Edgar Hoover/gestapo approach. Ultimatum's alway' smell bad.
One size DOES NOT FIT ALL! Can you just see Josh Hamilton, Bobby Jenks and Milton Bradley with a high school COC?........I say that if you throw a kid to the dogs for 1 or 2 incidents you may be changing the quality of his life. Let's think positvely and not go looking for trouble every time a kid steps out of line...some have a different drummer!
3 strikes and your out...thats the name of the game!
Every Coach has a different slant on that theory. Let them handle it.
The very best coach in the state has handled these issues flawlessly and I have witnessed it.
Maybe he should teach a class for all you do-gooder, politically correct ding-a-lings!
Anytime some socially concious individual writes up his or her own boiler plate COC agenda there will be plenty of disagreement. Our society has alway's been open to the individual. We are born in hospital's not in ovens on a cookie sheet and we are raised by vastly different standard's, not one. God forbid the J. Edgar Hoover/gestapo approach. Ultimatum's alway' smell bad.
One size DOES NOT FIT ALL! Can you just see Josh Hamilton, Bobby Jenks and Milton Bradley with a high school COC?........I say that if you throw a kid to the dogs for 1 or 2 incidents you may be changing the quality of his life. Let's think positvely and not go looking for trouble every time a kid steps out of line...some have a different drummer!
.
You've got that right soxnole.
I've had to fish my pair of Ultimatums© out of the litter box twice this week...our cats just won't put up with them under the same roof!
quote:Originally posted by soxnole:
Ultimatum's alway' smell bad.
You've got that right soxnole.
I've had to fish my pair of Ultimatums© out of the litter box twice this week...our cats just won't put up with them under the same roof!