We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
Originally posted by Guy@May 6 2005, 10:46 PM
I agree wih jeffie here. Policy is policy. If the kid breaks it he has to deal with the consequences. It isnt like the school instituted the policy just because they wanted to punish this kid. He knew the rules and chose to violate them, subsequenty he chose to accept the consequences associated with his actions.
in any case the kid wasn't suspended for talking on the phone (during lunch, a dumb policy) but he was suspended for using profanity with a teacher. There are better ways to solve issues than to be combative with a teacher.
[post=496199]Quoted post[/post]
Originally posted by Seany-izzle@May 7 2005, 02:26 PM
shouldnt the mother recognize that her son was in school at the time and could have just waited a few more hours to call him. im with blanco Rules are rules, ifyou break em you suffer the consequences.
[post=496315]Quoted post[/post]
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene
Do you know the difference in time between Iraq and the United States.
A parent can elect to home teach their stupid but can't decide when her child is allowed to talk to her in school?
What if it were an emergency or if the child hadn't talked to the mother in a long while and this was the only time he could talk to her?
If as someone said, the student was always on the cell phone then I could see yelling at him but not suspending him at this instance. Wait until the problem reoccured and deal with the situation at a more appropriate time.
Originally posted by Blanco@May 9 2005, 02:18 AM
Here's what we always used to say at the drum shop, "if you want the bro' deal, you've gotta' be a bro'". How does that translate? Social engineering. You're the kid in class, the phone that you're not supposed to even have rings in class, you see that it's your mother in Iraq, you say "I'm sorry, it's my mother in Iraq and I'm going outside to talk to her", and you do that while dealing with the consequences that you know are coming. Which brings up another saying, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". What you don't do is act like a belligerent little toad. So no, his behavior is not excusable since he went about the thing in completely the wrong fashion. The stress might have been too much for him, maybe this will start to teach him that lashing out is not an acceptable way of dealing with a problem.
As John, someone who was over there, has pointed out twice already...it's not like there was a long lapse in communication.
Originally posted by Blanco+May 10 2005, 10:58 AM-->New2TheCarScene@May 10 2005, 10:33 AM
sidebar - I think you like to argue just for the sake of seeing yourself type. You reiterated everything that I said except a difference of opinion on the consequences.
[post=497365]Quoted post[/post]
Hey genius. That's what the freaking argument is about.
And to address another point, what ever happened to calling the school office and having your child paged out of class so you can talk to them on the phone, without disrupting the rest of the class? Seemed to work just fine when I was in high school. For a teacher to not allow a disruption to the their class and to not allow a flagrant violation of the rules, shows that they actually care. I never had any problems with my parents being able to get ahold of me when they called the school office. If it wasn't important, they sent out a message during that class period and if it was important they paged you over the intercom. Contrary to popular belief, kids do not need cell phones while they're at school.
[post=497372]Quoted post[/post]
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@May 10 2005, 05:39 PM
The woman was in Iraq, she didn't need a phone book to call up the school and ask to speak with her child; it was more convenient for her to call her son up directly and her, being an adult, thats a decision thats she's entitled to make.
[post=497400]Quoted post[/post]