John Dryden Day

This week, I was inspired by this conversation to finally declare that we must assert our Constitutional rights against the most tyrannical force in our own lives. That’s right: our employers.

The time has come to honor the noble sacrifice of John Dryden. Even though he wasn’t a lawyer or terribly familiar with state and federal law regarding the handling of public school students’ confidential records, he appointed himself as legal counsel right then and there and told everyone exactly what he thought. It didn’t matter that he had twice been reprimanded in as many years for inappropriately telling people what was on his mind and informed that if he kept doing it, he could possibly be fired. What mattered was that he wasn’t going to let his employer tell him what he could and couldn’t do at his job, particularly when the Constitution was on the line.

Therefore, I declare Friday, June 7 to be the first John Dryden Day. How do we celebrate it?

1. Publicly tell your coworkers, supervisors, customers, clients, and vendors that the senior management of your organization is not looking out for the best interests of the shareholders/the public/the children whenever you are reminded of a workplace rule, policy, directive, or initiative that you don’t like! Be sure to let people in other departments know when their supervisors are telling them to do things you think are illegal. Remember that not everybody knows about John Dryden Day or the Constitution. It’s up to you to responsibly teach others how to interpret it with regard to their jobs, no matter what your employer’s idiotic legal representatives have said. Assert the First Amendment when your manager incorrectly tries to tell you that you can’t do or say any of that.*

2. Show up to work with alcohol on your breath or blood all over your clothes or something. When your boss demands to know what is going on, let him know firmly that you’re not going to incriminate yourself and you don’t appreciate him keeping all those files on you.

3. Does your workplace forbid guns? Fuck it! Bring your gun to work anyway. There could be an active shooter or something. I see no reason why if you are allowed to offer authoritative legal advice that may or may not conflict with your employer’s specific wishes, you can’t also play police officer for a day! Rules of conduct are meaningless when we have to make big, important decisions on the spot. It’s okay, it’s in the Bill of Rights. The good news is, you can also refuse to answer any questions from your boss regarding the pistol you’re carrying and there’s really nothing he can do about it.**

4. Assert your Fourth Amendment rights by surfing for as much porn as you like on your work computer or put some contraband of your choice in your desk or company car! It’s okay, because Constitution.***

Now, I’m sure that some of you think that this kind of stuff might get you in trouble somehow. My answer is: “Don’t worry, man!” If anyone ever tries to use the misconduct that you do on John Dryden Day against you as a basis for future termination, it’s character assassination and you can totally sue for wrongful termination.

Because this is America. And the Bill of Rights protects your right to keep your job no matter how frequently you disregard your employer’s policies or professional standards.

Best of all, John Dryden Day is on a Friday, which gives you plenty of time to get your desk cleaned out and think about what you did all weekend long. Hell, you might even get an extra-long weekend out of it!

So go out there and make a statement for freedom, all you Dryden fans!

* Thrill is not a lawyer and nothing he says should ever be interpreted as sane legal advice –Admin.

** Oh, shit. Seriously: Thrill is not a lawyer and his thoughts and expressed opinions do not necessarily (or at all in this case) reflect the opinions or positions of this website. –Admin

*** Damn it.

Comments are closed.

  1. Mississippi Yankee

    This morning I slept in rather late. And as I was having coffee and a sausage biscuit out on my back porch I over heard the 2 little girls (11 and 9) talking with two children of the same age (one was a boy) that happened to be visiting. BTW the boy had the patience of Job.

    The 11 year old has always been quite bossy but today she was ‘in high dudgeon’. She chose to take exception with everything said or implied and would only tolerate total agreement with her “correct” point of view.

    Now these are relatively new neighbors, the old lady that lived there for years went into a home, so I don’t remember all of the names (5 adults and 2 kids) But this precious little girl will forever be named THRILL in my mind, for obvious reasons.

    I’ll not waste anymore digital ink on Thrill’s obsession with Mr. Drysen. Nor his petulant little dragon.
    Let us all know when puberty kicks in.

    Hot! Thumb up 6

  2. gitarcarver

    Don’t find it humorous?

    Is it really humor when no one laughs?

    I have been following this back and forth between you and other commenters and have been amazed at your thought process.

    Let’s start with the above “humor” and work back.

    There are things that private citizens can do with that the government cannot. I can stand on the street corner and say that the President is an idiot without repercussions. I can’t do the same thing to the president of a company as it will most likely result in the termination of my employment.

    Most people understand the difference between what the government can and cannot do, and what private citizens can and cannot do. The above “humor” from you seems to indicate that you do not. Perhaps you do and are simply trying to use sarcasm to illustrate a point.

    If so, you failed. Miserably.

    But let’s go back to the original incident.

    Your “defense” of the school’s actions seem to be based on the idea that Dryden should have been disciplined because he had violated some sort of professional standard of conduct . At the very least, you believe his actions were wrong because he failed to follow the program set forth by his superiors.

    As evidence of that, you say that the school was following the law when it sought to make the surveys. In that the school was following the law, Dryden had no business saying anything negative about the surveys.

    Dryden’s comments were that the surveys may violate the 5th Amendment.

    You believe that Dryden was wrong to say that because the school administration said he was wrong because they could not convict anyone from the survey. Amazingly, the school board said they only arrest kids who do harm to others. Bull. Try taking a weapon onto school property. Try taking an illegal drug onto school property. Right off the bat, we know the administration is lying through their teeth as to the extent they will have kids arrested for.

    Even if we were to believe the administration on what they will convict someone for, that does not mean the police cannot use the information as part of an investigation. (Student privacy laws do not apply to criminal investigations.) Instead of saying that – instead of saying the truth – the administration lied and tried to get people to believe that not being able to “convict” is the same thing as not being able to “investigate” or “prosecute.” It was a great slight of hand, and one that you seem to have fallen for.

    Secondly, and this is important, what the privacy laws are now may not be the same in the future. You seem to be willing to accept the statement of a school administrator that the surveys won’t ever come out because he says so. (And here I thought he was a school administrator, not a legislator.)

    As evidence of how laws and agreements between government and citizens change, I only have to look in my back pocket and pull out my Social Security card. The card has the admonition on it that the card can never be used as identification except as a for of id with the Social Security Administration.

    Today, many states use social security numbers as driver’s license numbers. Credit company’s use the number. Even the IRS, who was not supposed to use the number, does so now.

    Laws change and there is no way some school administrator can guarantee the records will remain sealed.

    (To say nothing of the fact that some parent can come in and ask to see the records at any time. So when the school says “the records are private,” they aren’t being truthful.)

    However, let’s go to the real crux of your “defense.”

    You believe that the school administration was instituting the surveys as part of a law and therefore Dryden had to go along with it.

    In other words, you believe that the Dryden had to accept the product of the school (government) from the legislature (government) that abridged the 5th Amendment.

    Frankly sir, where are you getting the idea that the government can abridge rights for a purpose they believe is noble?

    That is really your defense. You believe Dryden was wrong because the school was following a state law that allowed the school to abridge the 5th Amendment.

    Generally speaking, any restriction the government places on a right must be limited in scope and serve a purpose for the general citizenry. Here, you seem to be saying that the complete wiping out of 5th Amendment protection for the purpose of individuals is acceptable.

    It is not.

    In essence, what your thought process boils down to is that Dryden needed to shut up because the government was following some law to violate the Bill of Rights.

    Frankly, that is circular “logic” and if anything, shows the flaw in your thinking.

    I know you won’t agree, but then again, we are going to disagree on what you think is “funny.”

    Thumb up 10

  3. Thrill *

    gitarcarver says:

    Okay, whoever you are….

    First up, I absolutely do not care about any of your points regarding privacy law as it pertains to this discussion. No action taken by the school board or its employees wipes out, circumvents, or neutralizes the 5th Amendment. One thing I’ve tried to do is bring the discussion away from the InfoWars-style nonsense that has hijacked the entire story. I am only commenting on this being a personnel matter between Dryden and the school.

    If you’re making this out to be anything beyond that, chances are that the reason you didn’t find it funny is because you’re probably the kind of person who was the butt of the joke all along.

    To me, it is funny that anyone would suggest that a teacher would tell the student body that the Administration of their school is lying to them about its possible intention to place them in legal jeopardy and that the school board doesn’t have a responsibility to take disciplinary action for that divisive misconduct. If you are suggesting that Dryden was punished for daring to tell the students about the Constitution, I have nothing else to tell you except that the joke is on you.

    I don’t care if you get it or not. I am all smiles tonight.

    Over the course of the other thread, I provided links to IL state law, the actual Letter of Remedy that Dryden received, and the school board’s policies. I know you haven’t read the entire conversation because you brought up a whole bunch of stuff that I definitively answered. You also failed to back up any of your assertions, which I repeatedly asked everyone who was arguing with me to do.

    So I guess now it’s your turn.

    Dryden’s argument was that the surveys violate the 5th Amendment. You say that the Superintendent was lying when he disagreed. Great. Back up these assertions with something other than more pompous, pseudo-intellectual babble, please:

    1. Right off the bat, we know the administration is lying through their teeth as to the extent they will have kids arrested for.

    There is no proof that the Administration was lying about anything. I challenge you to show me anything from the Web that you believe gave Dryden any reason to think that his Administration, Superintendent, or school board were lying to the students. Dryden has certainly not offered up anything.

    2. Even if we were to believe the administration on what they will convict someone for, that does not mean the police cannot use the information as part of an investigation. (Student privacy laws do not apply to criminal investigations.)

    Student privacy laws do apply. The school cannot simply take survey answers about past alcohol or drug use (which seem to have been the main concerns Dryden had) and hand them over to police. Seizure of student records requires a court order.

    Keep in mind though that ANYTHING students report to the Administration–by survey or in person–can be retained in these records and seized by a court. This matters because the high school has a very lenient policy when it comes to students “self-reporting” drug and alcohol abuse. Naturally, these admissions would also be kept within the student records, right?

    So do you have any evidence that the Administration has ever used any kind of self-report to assist law enforcement in prosecuting those students or released it as part of an investigation? If you had such a thing, it would sure go a long way toward justifying Dryden’s mistrust in the Administration, wouldn’t it?

    3. (To say nothing of the fact that some parent can come in and ask to see the records at any time. So when the school says “the records are private,” they aren’t being truthful.)

    The fact that parents could view their own kids’ records was never relevant to this story. What does this serve? Neither Dryden nor the Administration brought this up as a factor. I am curious.

    Now to give you some clarification:

    You believe that the school administration was instituting the surveys as part of a law and therefore Dryden had to go along with it.

    He was obligated to professionally complete a task assigned to him by his employer, the Batavia School District, yes.

    In other words, you believe that the Dryden had to accept the product of the school (government) from the legislature (government) that abridged the 5th Amendment.

    Seeing as how I’m on “defense” here, it’s up to you to explain how any of this abridges the 5th Amendment, as I said above.

    Frankly sir, where are you getting the idea that the government can abridge rights for a purpose they believe is noble?

    I have not said so.

    In essence, what your thought process boils down to is that Dryden needed to shut up because the government was following some law to violate the Bill of Rights.

    Tell Alex Jones I said, “Oswald!!!” He’ll know what you mean.

    Dryden needed to be disciplined because he mischaracterized his employer’s intentions regarding these surveys in direct statements to the students on three occasions. We’ve been over this a dozen times or more in the past week. He received a Letter of Remedy because he has already been twice reprimanded for his pattern of misconduct that involved making inappropriate comments to students. It’s all there in the Letter of Remedy, which you can find on the linked thread.

    The school board is on extremely solid ground with its actions taken on this matter.

    The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with any of this. Now run along and try to find something to back up your arguments. Just keep in mind that if you don’t have anything to demonstrate that the Superintendent was lying, you should not come back at all. I tend to get a bit rude when clueless people waste my time.

    Hot! Thumb up 5

  4. Seattle Outcast

    Schools exist to educate children. The do not exist for the following purposes:

    1) Provide a second set of (smarter, better educated) parents

    2) Provide teachers with insane benefit packages

    3) Become an extension of law enforcement

    Thumb up 6

  5. gitarcarver

    First up, I absolutely do not care about any of your points regarding privacy law as it pertains to this discussion.

    Of course you don’t. Those points show how wrong you are so the best way for you to address them is to not address them.

    No action taken by the school board or its employees wipes out, circumvents, or neutralizes the 5th Amendment.

    Except for that nasty “self incrimination” part, you are correct.

    There is no proof that the Administration was lying about anything.

    As I said, the administration says they only arrest kids when they harm another. That is false. It is a lie.

    Seizure of student records requires a court order.

    Ding ding ding! We have a loser! By your own admission, the records are not sealed forever and the police may get at them. As I said, the school may very well not use the surveys to convict someone, but they can be used as part of an investigation.

    The fact that parents could view their own kids’ records was never relevant to this story.

    Typically the right of privacy rests with the individual. The fact that another individual can examine the records means that by definition, they are not private. So when the school says “no one can see these records,” they are not telling the truth.

    He was obligated to professionally complete a task assigned to him by his employer, the Batavia School District, yes.

    His reminding kids of their rights in no way interfered with that obligation.

    Seeing as how I’m on “defense” here, it’s up to you to explain how any of this abridges the 5th Amendment, as I said above.

    Don’t be an idiot. You know the issue here is one of self incrimination.

    I have not said so.

    Of course you have. Your whole premise is that the school board was carrying out a law that was passed and as part of that law, abridged the 5th Amendment. That’s the point. You have always said “the school was only following the law and Dryden was obligated to follow the policy set by the law.” The flaw in that is idea that anyone has to follow a policy that violates a right.

    The school board is on extremely solid ground with its actions taken on this matter.

    This could no more stand a court challenge than ice in hades.

    The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with any of this.

    Your saying so does not make it true.

    Just keep in mind that if you don’t have anything to demonstrate that the Superintendent was lying, you should not come back at all.

    Done and done.

    I tend to get a bit rude when clueless people waste my time.

    Makes it hard to live with yourself, doesn’t it?

    (If you want to go down the path of insults, I can do that too.)

    Quite simply, you’re wrong on this issue and have become so entrenched in a position, you can’t even begin to think about another point of view. That’s a pity.

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  6. richtaylor365

    gitarcarver, naturally I agree with pretty much everything you said here because I made those same points in the other thread (why we need 2 separate threads to discuss the exact same thing?)

    School boards do not get a pass when over reaching and violating both student and parental rights just because their motives are allegedly pure. They could just as easily complied with the law with another survey, one that did not ask the students to incriminate themselves in past illegal acts. Oddly, I doubt a single person reading this blog would allow his own child to fill out this survey, yet the school thought it was a good idea anyway. It is not a stretch to assume that since they attempted to pry into areas of past criminality, that they did not stay consistent and pry into other areas beyond what they need to know. And since they are treating this survey like a state secret, even the best Google skills has so far come up empty in us obtaining what other outlandish/intrusive questions they might have asked these students, to conclude that they limited their intrusion to just past acts of criminality is naive.

    Any parent should be fuming at what this school board tried to pull, to try an end run around parental rights to get dirt on their kids, all under the umbrella of student social and emotional development, shameful.

    Thumb up 6

  7. Thrill *

    (why we need 2 separate threads to discuss the exact same thing?)

    I’m with you there. It seems like gitarcarver could have easily evaded all the questions I’ve posed on the other thread instead of not answering them here. If he can’t/won’t do that, then I won’t bother responding.

    You are all still trying to pretend that this is anything more than a case of a teacher being disciplined (for at least the third time since 2011) for making inappropriate and unprofessional comments to students.

    Rich, you even acknowledge that we all feel the same way about the greater privacy issue. I’m certainly not arguing any of those points, except to note that the school board is doing as they’re required by state law. Nobody has brought any case that I’m aware of that says that this somehow nullifies the 5th Amendment. In fact, no commenter on either thread has shown how this even does harm the right to protection against self-incrimination.

    None of you have presented a single case that shows a student in that school district or even the state of Illinois has ever been prosecuted for self-reporting past drug or alcohol abuse to a public school. I’m offering you the guys the chance to show that so that there we can establish some shred of basis for Dryden to mischaracterize what the school was doing with the surveys. You have failed at this.

    I presented all of the facts on the other thread and repeatedly gave you people the chance to offer something other than theoretical butthole-gazing musings. Nobody has taken me up on it. I just get more filibusters about how much you guys hate it that schools play this role.

    I get that. I’m not even fighting over that because I’m approaching this from the perspective of how things are, not how I might prefer them to be.. So on that basis, Dryden did behave incorrectly.

    You want to argue about whether or not schools should ever seek out, store, and collect student’s personal information, to include emotional and mental health evaluations or self-reports of criminal activity? Fantastic. Go find a forum where someone is arguing that this is what schools should be doing. I’m not making that argument nor am I interested in doing so here. You’re wasting my time and your own by rehashing points that have been argued over multiple times on the other thread.

    The entire thrust of THIS post is whether or not anybody can violate their employer’s work rules, undermine their employer’s initiatives or programs, give stupid legal advice and still keep his job.

    You think Dryden is a hero for challenging the whole idea that schools should ask these questions? Bully for you and Dryden, for that matter. However, the school board has fully explained why this disciplinary action was necessary because they are in fact required to do those things. Dryden can either support his employer’s overall goals or he can find another job.

    The school board even explained to Dryden that he was absolutely welcome to question the Administration. They directed him to bring those issues up directly with Administrators instead of undermining them in the face of the students, however. This is exactly what he should have done in the first place.

    Dryden said he made a judgment call under the circumstances. He demonstrated poor judgment and said things to his students that he should have said to his boss. That he has been reprimanded before about making improper comments to students over the past two years is well-documented and significant to this incident. The school board has demonstrated that this is a continuation of a pattern and that is why this action was necessary.

    I’m not arguing anything else but that. What I did in this post was lampshade your arguments that it’s perfectly acceptable for an employee to run afoul of his or her employer’s standards of conduct and for it to be perfectly okay because the Constitution says those things should theoretically be acceptable.

    Instead of acknowledging my point that Dryden did run against the expectations placed on him by his employer and left them no real option but to discipline him, you people just keep turning the kookery up to 11.

    Again, leaving your theoretical arguments that don’t apply to the real world in which we live according to the laws of Illinois, the policies of the school board, and the directives that John Dryden was given; can somebody please tell me why he should not have been punished? He may have been right on principle. Neato. That’s not what I’m asking.

    Did John Dryden’s “mischaracterization” (and I say that because none of you have managed to prove that he had any good reason to believe that the school was going to use the information for anything other than the intended purpose) of the purpose of the surveys have the effect of undermining the Administration’s standing with the students and its stated goals?

    Again, I am dealing within the program that the school board was mandated to enact by state law and the surveys that Dryden was lawfully directed to administer to his students. If you want to argue anything beyond that, go to the other thread. This post entirely deals with the personnel matter. Hal’s post speaks to the greater issue of privacy. Have at it.

    Do you think that this incident was a continuation of the same pattern of inappropriate comments that he has been reprimanded for in the past?

    Dryden has been told that if he does this again, he will face the possibility of termination of his employment. The Superintendent says that they are going to continue using these surveys. Dryden has stated that he “would do it again.” Do you think he should do it again, even if he will be fired for it?

    Do you think he would have a good case for wrongful termination if he got fired for repeating this action during a future survey?

    If you don’t want to discuss these issues, go find another leg to hump.

    Thumb up 3

  8. gitarcarver

    It seems like gitarcarver could have easily evaded all the questions I’ve posed on the other thread instead of not answering them here.

    I am not sure what questions I missed and if I have, I am sure you will point them out to me. I suspect that instead of missing questions, you actually disagree with the answers and then try and say that no one answered the questions.

    However, it is odd that you are blaming others for commenting in a thread of a duplicate topic which you started.

    can somebody please tell me why he should not have been punished?

    Your question assumes that he should have been punished in the first place. (One cannot disprove a negative.)

    The lynchpin of the argument that he should have been punished is the so called “mischaracterization” of the survey.

    As shown below, the “intent” of the survey does not matter. It is the methods used to fulfill that intent that should be the focus of the discussion. You have stated that the kids had the right to opt out of the survey up to a day before it being administered. According to parents, not all parents were notified of the survey and no one had seen it or the requirement it be signed. That in and of itself is an issue, but let’s put that one aside for a moment. Please tell us all where there is a time limit on “self incrimination?” What makes you think that just because a form was not filled out and returned to the school that the kid had waived his rights prior to or during the administration of the survey?

    There was no “miscaharacterization” of the survey. You admit the records can be accessed via a search warrant and therefore be made part of criminal case. That is what the teacher said and he was right.

    Did John Dryden’s “mischaracterization” (and I say that because none of you have managed to prove that he had any good reason to believe that the school was going to use the information for anything other than the intended purpose) of the purpose of the surveys have the effect of undermining the Administration’s standing with the students and its stated goals?

    The goals of the survey matter not one iota. You and the school board keep bringing this up as if it is germane. It is not. The goals of the survey are not the issue. The methods used to achieve those goals are.

    Your reliance on the “stated purpose” of the survey is akin to hopping in your car, driving to the store and getting into an accident. Try saying “it can’t be my fault because my intent was to drive to the store.” See how far that gets you. Yet that is exactly the argument you are putting forth here.

    (And if you don’t like that one, try remembering “the road to hell is paved with good intentions…”)

    Again, I am dealing within the program that the school board was mandated to enact by state law and the surveys that Dryden was lawfully directed to administer to his students.

    And what you fail to address is that simply because the law required something, that means the students lose their rights.

    Do you think that this incident was a continuation of the same pattern of inappropriate comments that he has been reprimanded for in the past?

    No. And here’s why…….

    Anytime you see a list of other things done in the past on a discipline notice that are not identical to the incident being discussed, you know the supervisor is “piling on.” Notice that the things the administration says in the past are things that are said to individual students – and not comments made in the course of a class letting kids know of their rights.

    As the saying goes, “one of these things is not like the others.” The board put the previous dissimilar incidents in the letter to add weight to their conclusion in the minds of people who are willing to take them at their word.

    Do you think he should do it again, even if he will be fired for it?

    That is a question he will need to answer for himself.

    Do you think he would have a good case for wrongful termination if he got fired for repeating this action during a future survey?

    Absolutely. In essence, Dryden would be being fired for having spoken the truth on a subject matter he teaches.

    You seem to think that a person can be terminated simply for failing to follow the directions of a supervisor. While that is generally the case, there are at least five instances where failing to follow directions from a supervisor may not result in termination.

    If you don’t want to discuss these issues, go find another leg to hump.

    In other words you are saying, “I am right and you are wrong…..na na na na na na na….. I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

    Thumb up 5

  9. grady

    Seems like you guys are splitting hairs. Can the kids volunteer to not take the surveys or not answer certain questions? That seems to me to be the point that would invoke 5th amendment rights. If the kids could be disciplined for not giving answers (or later found to not have given truthful answers), then you are taking away their right to not self incriminate.

    If the teacher reminds them of this right, it’s undercutting his boss. It doesn’t matter if the law is in violation of the constitution, as there are means of overturning laws and those procedures may be followed. The teacher reminding them of their rights is like a car salesman that tells a customer that he can get a lower price across town. It may be true, but his boss may fire him for it.

    The privacy issue is like any other privacy issue for kids. You have limited privacy from your parents, depending on the state you are in. A warrant demanding the school files be turned over will be dependent on state law.

    But to the point of individual liberty … Why does the school or the state need to have these filled out? For the good of the children? What if the children don’t want what the state says is best for them? Can’t they make that choice, as many of us have over our lives?

    Biggest lesson for the kids is straight out of the politicians handbook – Don’t ever admit to any wrongdoing and definitely don’t allow it to be documented.

    Thumb up 3

  10. Thrill *

    Fully half of your last comment is masturbation, gitarcarver. National Masturbation Month ended on May 31, so you missed the deadline for consideration of all that. However, you did make an attempt to answer the questions I put to you, so I’ll respond and even turn down the heated rhetoric. I’ll keep that going as long as you do.

    Here is the Letter of Remedy, for quick reference.

    And what you fail to address is that simply because the law required something, that means the students lose their rights.

    You have refused to back up the allegation that the Administration would or could have used any survey question for the purpose of depriving students at every single opportunity. You’re out of chances to demonstrate that this information was going to be collected for its stated purpose. Dryden decided to thwart that purpose based on a vague suspicion that the Administration was gathering it for any other purpose. Humorously, you point to the fact that the police only being able to even access those records for crimes already investigation under the Fourth Amendment pretty much ruins your own argument that the students are “losing their rights”.

    Notice that the things the administration says in the past are things that are said to individual students – and not comments made in the course of a class letting kids know of their rights.

    In one instance, he “lost his temper” and stated that he was going to shove some coins up a student’s ass. On the other two, he made comments that were pretty caustic and not very well-thought out.

    This indicates that he is impulsive when it comes to statements that he makes. He has these prior incidents in which he said things that he didn’t really mean in the heat of the moment. That’s no different from what he did here. I don’t personally believe that he meant to indicate that the Administration wasn’t looking out for the student’s best welfare, but he made a hasty decision and that’s exactly how it came out. And like his previous hasty decisions, he said things that got him in trouble.

    Teaching students about the Bill of Rights is part of his job description. No question about that. However, Dryden wasn’t providing instruction, he was giving legal advice. He didn’t stop at telling students that they didn’t have to answer questions that they didn’t feel comfortable answering (which would have been perfectly reasonable). He told them that he wouldn’t even take the survey, according to the letter. That was directly opposing the goals of the school board’s program and certainly isn’t in his job description.

    This isn’t a minor issue. If students came directly to Dryden and said that they had been abusing alcohol or drugs, he would likely have to report it to the counselor or administrators under threat of termination. Whatever actions the Administration took at that point would similarly have been included in the student record.

    So would it then be Dryden’s job to refer that student to the office for assistance or would it be his job to provide legal aid and dissuade the student from self-incrimination? You might say that he is doing right by providing the 5th Amendment warning, but that is not his job. And I’m not even giving you an off-the-wall example here. It’s exactly what he did, except it was with the survey questions instead of a face-to-face report.

    That is a question he will need to answer for himself.

    I’m surprised you took a pass on that one.

    Absolutely. In essence, Dryden would be being fired for having spoken the truth on a subject matter he teaches.

    No, he would be fired for providing legal advice after being specifically warned in the Remedy letter not to do that. That would be the stated reason and it would be correct since it would be the exact same incident.

    You seem to think that a person can be terminated simply for failing to follow the directions of a supervisor.

    Well, yes. A person can. But that wasn’t so much the issue here. It was Dryden’s verbal mischaracterization of the purpose of the surveys that he received disciplinary action for. In this case, Dryden has been given a directive not to do specific things and if he violates that, he can certainly be terminated. That’s certainly the case with every employer I’ve ever had.

    Understand that I’m not saying that Dryden wasn’t exactly disciplined for refusing to follow a directive THIS time, but if a year from now, he repeats the same warning to students, he will certainly be doing so.

    While that is generally the case, there are at least five instances where failing to follow directions from a supervisor may not result in termination.

    What are those five instances as you know them?

    Given that Dryden is probably a union employee, you have to ask:

    1. Was he notified that doing X would be a violation of a directive? Yes, he was.

    2. Was he warned of the consequences for doing X? Yes, he was.

    3. Was the directive illegal or does it place him into a hazardous situation? No, none of the directives given in the Letter of Remedy–which Dryden agreed to comply with, by the way–were in violation of either of those.

    Thumb up 2

  11. gitarcarver

    “You’ve lost, and you just don’t know it….” is a line from the movie “Searching Bobby Fischer.” You may remember the scene where the young chess player extends a hand to his opponent in order to declare a draw and give the opponent some dignity.

    Like you, the player declines the offer and he loses.

    In this post I’ll attempt to once again show why you are wrong using your own reasoning. In the next post, I’ll show you why you are wrong on a legal level.

    As you read this, just remember….. “you’ve lost, and you just don’t know it….”

    You have refused to back up the allegation that the Administration would or could have used any survey question for the purpose of depriving students at every single opportunity.

    I believe you have deliberately misread what I have said or simply ignored anything that is contrary to your opinion. The school board’s motives don’t matter. The stated purpose does not preclude the use of the information by the schools for another purpose. We know the school board lied in its comments to the people. They have lost the benefit of the doubt.

    Humorously, you point to the fact that the police only being able to even access those records for crimes already investigation under the Fourth Amendment pretty much ruins your own argument that the students are “losing their rights”.

    I am glad you are entertained. However, once again, you fail to see the issue. The school board declared the records could not be used as a means to “convict” a student. They said this to give the impression – an impression that you bought – that the data from the survey was locked up tight. The fact it can be accessed even by a subpoena shows the fallacy in the school board’s position and your belief.

    If students came directly to Dryden and said that they had been abusing alcohol or drugs, he would likely have to report it to the counselor or administrators under threat of termination.

    You state this as if it helps your position. It doesn’t. If the kid comes to the teacher and tells them something, they have waived their 5th amendment rights. In essence, you are arguing that the right exists, but only when the school board says it does. That is not accurate.

    No, he would be fired for providing legal advice after being specifically warned in the Remedy letter not to do that.

    You have stated this before too.

    Legal advice” is defined as:

    Legal advice is generally defined as the assessment and application of principles of law to a particular factual situation. It involves the application of legal principles to facts in a manner that (1) in effect predicts a specific resolution of a legal issue or (2) directs, counsels, urges, or recommends a course of action by a disputant or disputants as a means of resolving a legal issue.

    There are four things in the Letter of Remedy which the board says are “legal advice.” (Exhibit A I(a)(6)(a-d).) Letters a, b, and d are no more “legal advice” than you and I talking. Once again, we see the board overreaching to try and support their decision. “B” states Dryden told his students they “should not answer any question that would incriminate them.” Is that legal advice? Maybe. But given the fact that it was a part of a discussion in which Dryden was offering his own opinion, it is clear he was not acting nor pretending to act as a lawyer. The entirety of the conversation must be taken into account – not just one sentence here and there.

    It was Dryden’s verbal mischaracterization of the purpose of the surveys that he received disciplinary action for.

    There was no “mischaracterization.” You repeating that does not make it so.

    What are those five instances as you know them?

    They are: 1) Is the person issuing the directive in the direct chain of authority of the employee?
    2) Is the directive against company policy?
    3) Is the directive against the person’s moral, ethical or creed beliefs?
    4) Is the directive against the law?
    5) Does the directive put the employee at risk of physical injury?

    I am assuming the following questions were based on what would happen the next time Dryden tries to tell his students the surveys may violate the 5th Amendment.

    1. Was he notified that doing X would be a violation of a directive? Yes, he was.

    I agree. But that makes the assumption that the initial directive to do or not do something was legal. That issue is clearly up in the air.

    2. Was he warned of the consequences for doing X? Yes, he was.

    Same answer. An employee cannot be disciplined for a legal action.

    In conclusion, your premise is based on the idea that a law may make something unConstitutional, Constitution. You then make the mistake in saying that the people making the law and the people enforcing the law are the only judges of whether the actions of that law are legal. You fail to see how the school board lied in their presentation of what happened, and what the data from the surveys may be used for.

    Usually when one constructs such a house of cards it only takes one card falling to topple the entire house. Here, you have no cards to hold up any part of your position.

    But as I said, this is all about to go by the wayside.

    You’ve lost, and you just don’t know it.

    Thumb up 4

  12. gitarcarver

    Whether a person can be disciplined has in part a basis of whether the action for which he is being disciplined is legal. This includes the underlying directive of the supervisor. In other words, if a supervisor tells you to sell pot, you don’t have to follow that directive as the underlying directive is illegal.

    You have made a huge issue on the nature of the surveys and the legality of those surveys because of their “purpose.”

    Therefore, if one can show the surveys themselves were not administered in a legal manner, any discipline given to Dryden would be moot.

    Here’s the shocker for you – the surveys were not administered in a legal manner.

    20 USC § 1232g covers many issues, but includes surveys such as the one given by the school board. You can read the entire thing if you wish, but there are three “types” of surveys – ones sponsored and paid for by the Department of Education., ones sponsored by local educational agencies (LEA’s) that accept Department of Education funds, and ones that are self funded by LEA’s who do not accept DoE funds.

    It is unclear whether the funds used for the survey were from the DoE, but there is no doubt the Batavia school district receives federal dollars from the DoE.

    Assuming that the DoE funded the survey, the following restrictions apply:

    The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) is a federal law that affords certain rights to parents of minor students with regard to surveys that ask questions of a personal nature. Briefly, the law requires that schools obtain written consent from parents before minor students are required to participate in any U.S. Department of Education funded survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning the following areas:

    Political affiliations;
    Mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student and his/her family;
    Sex behavior and attitudes;
    Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior;
    Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;
    Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers;
    Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student’s parent*; or
    Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program.)

    Batavia did not obtain written permission from parents for the survey to be administered. They gave an “opt out,” (which some parents never saw) but there was no “opt in” as required by Federal law if the survey was paid for with DoE funds.

    Therefore if the survey was paid for with Federal funds, any discipline arising from the survey itself is illegal and contrary to long standing, black letter employment law.

    But what if the survey was not paid for by the DoE, but was simply administered by the school district? As I said, Batavia receives DoE dollars, so this criteria at the minimum applies:

    Surveys Funded by Sources Other than U.S. Department of Education

    The new provisions (contained in subsection c) apply (as does FERPA) to educational agencies or institutions that receive funds from any program of the Department of Education. Thus, public elementary and secondary schools are subject to the new provisions of PPRA. Here are the new requirements:

    Schools are required to develop and adopt policies – in conjunction with parents – regarding the following –
    The right of parents to inspect, upon request, a survey created by a third party before the survey is administered or distributed by a school to students.
    Arrangements to protect student privacy in the event of the administration of a survey to students, including the right of parents to inspect, upon request, the survey, if the survey contains one or more of the same eight items of information noted above.
    The right of parents to inspect, upon request, any instructional material used as part of the educational curriculum for students.
    The administration of physical examinations or screenings that the school may administer to students.
    The collection, disclosure, or use of personal information collected from students for the purpose of marketing or selling, or otherwise providing the information to others for that purpose.
    The right of parents to inspect, upon request, any instrument used in the collection of information, as described in number 5

    If you remember, the day of the survey Dryden said he was unaware that the school was taking names with the surveys. Other teachers have said the same thing. This means the actual survey was not part of the educational curriculum as required. Furthermore, when asked to provide the survey by parents, the head of the school board said the survey was “proprietary” and could not be handed out which is contrary to the law. No one was informed of the content of these surveys prior to their administration. No one was allowed to see them prior to their administration. No matter what funding was used, the surveys themselves were illegally administered by the school district.

    You cannot discipline an employee on the basis of something that in and of itself is illegal as were these surveys.

    It doesn’t matter what the school board’s intentions were.

    In short it doesn’t matter what Dryden did. The school board itself created the greater illegal act and Dryden cannot be held to that.

    Checkmate.

    Thumb up 4

  13. Thrill *

    The school board’s motives don’t matter. The stated purpose does not preclude the use of the information by the schools for another purpose. We know the school board lied in its comments to the people.

    The school board did not lie. As I’ve pointed out before, if Dryden was making the implication that the admissions on the surveys were going to result in anything other than its stated purpose, to include punishment or law enforcement intervention or anything else you can imagine, and that the Administration couldn’t be trusted with confidential information; then it doesn’t make Dryden look any better.

    You are unable/unwilling to provide any example of any Illinois school, much less this school district, providing students’ self-admissions of past drug or alcohol abuse to law enforcement for any investigation, ever.

    For law enforcement to actually request any of the information in that survey, they would have to be aware of it. Can the school district volunteer that they possess this confidential student record information to the police? No, they cannot.

    Second, law enforcement would have to justify seizing a student record for a prosecution involving past drug or alcohol abuse. Courts traditionally balance the needs of law enforcement with the privacy of the student. It’s hard to see any situation where a court would subpoena records that were gathered by a school to provide mental and emotional counseling to students. In fact, it’s so rare that you cannot even find an example of where this has happened.

    Finally, the school district is required by IL law to notify the parents of the student prior to releasing the records so that they can fight it. Those records are extremely well-protected from the sort of intrusion that you fantasize about.

    For all other uses, the school district would be obligated to comply with the relevant laws related to student records. In any other case, it’s hard to see what the 5th Amendment has to do with that.

    If the kid comes to the teacher and tells them something, they have waived their 5th amendment rights. In essence, you are arguing that the right exists, but only when the school board says it does. That is not accurate.

    That’s a softball. The student could also be said to “waive his Fifth Amendment rights” by answering the survey questions (if it applied here). Teachers aren’t obligated or encouraged to advise students of their Fifth Amendment rights when a student discloses such an issue. Making the determination that they shouldn’t hear that information because it is not in the student’s best legal interest is not a decision for a lawyer, not a teacher, to make.

    “B” states Dryden told his students they “should not answer any question that would incriminate them.” Is that legal advice? Maybe.

    The Letter says that it did constitute legal advice, Dryden was directed not to do it again, and he agreed to comply. I’m not sure how you think he has a leg to stand on.

    In conclusion, your premise is based on the idea that a law may make something unConstitutional, Constitution.

    You call the school district’s actions “unconstitutional”. That’s odd, because not even Dryden has made that claim as far as anything I’ve read goes. You can offer up that maybe school employees should administer some version of Miranda to students in these situations, but the fact that they don’t have to now isn’t unconstitutional by any stretch of the word.

    He simply incorrectly believed that it was appropriate for him to advise students of their 5th Amendment rights and discourage them from taking the survey.

    The whole premise of the top post is that deciding for yourself whether or not you can do something at work is acceptable based on whether or not you feel it is Constitutional–regardless of your organization’s policies and procedures, lawful instructions from your supervisor, state law, or anything else–will result in predictable consequences. There’s no reason to think that Dryden deserves special treatment.

    You then make the mistake in saying that the people making the law and the people enforcing the law are the only judges of whether the actions of that law are legal.

    Did I say that? Where did I say that?

    You’ve lost, and you just don’t know it.

    Pretty sure I was in agreement with the winning side here. I’ve been arguing from the beginning that Dryden’s actions were inappropriate and that I would write him up if he worked for me. That is exactly what happened. The school board even made many of the same points in their letter that I did throughout the thread. Everything I see went the way I predicted it would and the facts and outcome have all favored my point of view.

    Dryden was given a level of disciplinary action that I favored and he agreed to comply with the directives given to him. I don’t think I’ve “won” anything by favoring a beloved teacher getting a warning, but it’s silly to say that I’ve “lost” because you’ve pronounced that this whole thing was unconstitutional. That’s cute.

    Thumb up 2

  14. Thrill *

    Here’s the shocker for you – the surveys were not administered in a legal manner.

    Oh, nice try. I do appreciate the extensive research. Very refreshing, but you still have to back that up.

    Assuming that the DoE funded the survey, the following restrictions apply:

    Well, did it? The school board noted in the Letter that the test cost the district $8,000. It does not appear that federal funding for the survey or the program was an issue. The program itself is a state program, notably. Unless you can show that this funding for this program was federal, none of the above applies.

    But what if the survey was not paid for by the DoE, but was simply administered by the school district? As I said, Batavia receives DoE dollars, so this criteria at the minimum applies:

    You’re on much more solid ground here, but…

    Furthermore, when asked to provide the survey by parents, the head of the school board said the survey was “proprietary” and could not be handed out which is contrary to the law.

    And where are you getting this information from? Every article I have seen says that the school refused to provide the questions to the media, but not parents. I can find no indication that any parent either asked to inspect the surveys or was refused. If you can provide a link that shows that a parent asked to see the survey questions before the survey was administered and was refused, I’ll have to concede that the school was in violation of PPRA. Not that this gets Dryden off the hook.

    I repeatedly noted on the other thread that the Superintendent and other officials stated outright that they did not do a good enough job of informing the parents before conducting the survey. Perhaps that’s why they didn’t discipline Dryden for violating orders? Doubtful, but possible.

    However, assuming that the school does administer the survey properly on the next go-around (and by all indications, they do plan to keep doing it) the Letter’s given directives will be valid. The nature of the disciplinary action Dryden received was “improper conduct” and the specific acts and statements he made apply whether or not the school was in violation of PPRA (which remains to be confirmed by you) when they gave the survey in April.

    The corrective actions given to Dryden don’t apply any less with regard to countering school district initiatives or failing to consult with administrators even IF the school violated the law in this incident. If the school completes the appropriate notifications, allows parents to inspect the surveys, and all that then the warnings found in the Letter completely apply. I’m not sure how you managed to apply the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine to an employment matter. Maybe you have some sort of precedent for this?

    Assuming Dryden learns to choose his words more carefully, keep his temper, and seek counsel from Administration before inflaming the students against Administration with legal advice, he will do fine.

    Checkmate.

    Too bad we’re playing checkers. This is sporting. Hardest I’ve had to work on here in awhile.

    Thumb up 3

  15. richtaylor365

    Leave for a few hours to get my car serviced and I miss another War And Peace size exchange. It’s all Hal’s fault, he started this mess.

    Thrill, most the questions you have posed in this thread, I answered, rather thoroughly I must admit, in the other one, so to conclude, this is mostly rehash.

    But let me ask you just a few questions to (hopefully) give you a different perspective;

    1) You have already told us that as a parent you would not allow your kid to take this survey, why not?

    2) Assuming that the results of this survey are in fact kept confidential and “protected” by the school, can you not see other bad things (I mentioned some of these in quite a few of my other comments in the other thread) other negative consequences that could befall the student with this new found information that the school now has at it’s disposal?

    3) Do you not understand the simple concept of parental privacy wrt their kids past indiscretions? Parents do not want the schools to know about past criminality, it really is that simple. If my kid was caught shoplifting when he was younger, or got caught smoking a joint at a public park, I would not want ANYONE to know about it, especially the school where teachers could have access to it. You seem to think that all these signed confessions are going to kept under lock and key, you don’t know this, you don’t know who will have access to these, how they will be “protected”, hell, for all you know they could be left on someone’s desk open for any perusing eyes to see.

    4) Why did the school need to go “there”? Why the need to delve into past incidents of criminality in the first place? Can you not see this as totally unnecessary? What were their motives for this unnecessary breach? Could not student social and emotional development be addressed and served equally well without this intrusion?

    5)Since we still don’t know what was asked on this survey, is it not reasonable to assume that since they crossed the line with their inquires regarding past criminality, that other areas equally intrusive to ask about were also broached? This teacher read the survey, all the questions on the survey, you did not, isn’t he more qualified to discern the appropriateness of this survey more then you?

    6)Regarding all those parents that showed up at the board meeting, what percentage of those (if any at all) showed up not so much in support of Dryden but more to protest the survey in the first place and their focused intrusions into their personal lives? Do you think any parent of any kid at that school is pleased that they, the school, now know about all the dirty little secrets they had tried so hard to keep private?

    For the record, I will admit that I was initially more sympathetic to Dryden’s plight, but further revelations of past indiscretions, his other runs ins with the school board prove that he is a bit if a dick and probably does not belong teaching kids. But my interest in this marathon subject always was getting you to see how dangerous this type of school intrusions are, and how little they regard the parental rights of the kids they take charge of. It is stuff just like this survey and the over reach of the school that implemented it that must be fought.

    Thumb up 5

  16. Thrill *

    1) You have already told us that as a parent you would not allow your kid to take this survey, why not?

    Let’s just say I’ve had a negative personal experience with this kind of thing. I will not discuss here, but I would be willing to with you privately.

    2) Assuming that the results of this survey are in fact kept confidential and “protected” by the school, can you not see other bad things (I mentioned some of these in quite a few of my other comments in the other thread) other negative consequences that could befall the student with this new found information that the school now has at it’s disposal?

    I don’t see how, assuming that they follow the laws and best practices of maintaining confidential records. If gitarcarver can show that the district violated the law here, then I’d say Dryden gets a big credibility boost (not that he needed it, given his popularity).

    3) Do you not understand the simple concept of parental privacy wrt their kids past indiscretions? Parents do not want the schools to know about past criminality, it really is that simple. If my kid was caught shoplifting when he was younger, or got caught smoking a joint at a public park, I would not want ANYONE to know about it, especially the school where teachers could have access to it. You seem to think that all these signed confessions are going to kept under lock and key, you don’t know this, you don’t know who will have access to these, how they will be “protected”, hell, for all you know they could be left on someone’s desk open for any perusing eyes to see.

    The best thing to do is opt out of these surveys for your kids–exactly as I have suggested I would do. As gitarcarver has pointed out, the school must give them that opportunity to opt out by law.

    4) Why did the school need to go “there”?

    You keep using the word “criminality.” I don’t personally associate underage alcohol and drug abuse with criminality. I think they need help. In fact, I believe this is true of everybody. Different topic, I guess.

    As I’ve said before, alcohol and drug abuse are major factors in suicide. I don’t see how you can possibly do a mental and emotional assessment with the aim of preventing suicide without addressing those issues.

    5)Since we still don’t know what was asked on this survey, is it not reasonable to assume that since they crossed the line with their inquires regarding past criminality, that other areas equally intrusive to ask about were also broached?

    Sure, it’s reasonable. But the school purchased this test from a company that specializes these assessments and selected it based on input from psychologists, administrators, counselors, etc. The selection process lasted for a year. Dryden reviewed the survey for ten minutes on the fly.

    Don’t you think the group of people who researched applicability and legality of these surveys for a year had a better idea of what THEY were talking about than a teacher who got a few minutes? And don’t you also think that the teacher would have been well-served by ASKING one of those people about it before shooting from the hip?

    6)Regarding all those parents that showed up at the board meeting, what percentage of those (if any at all) showed up not so much in support of Dryden but more to protest the survey in the first place and their focused intrusions into their personal lives?

    I have no idea. But let’s face it: If the parents were so disengaged that they didn’t bother to ask questions about the survey or opt their kids out of it, that’s probably a major reason that district has so many suicides going on. Hate to say it, but it’s true.

    Do you think any parent of any kid at that school is pleased that they, the school, now know about all the dirty little secrets they had tried so hard to keep private?

    I really have no idea. That’s pretty subjective. However, I can tell you from anecdotal experience that school kids tell their teachers a shocking amount about their home lives, with or without surveys.

    For the record, I will admit that I was initially more sympathetic to Dryden’s plight, but further revelations of past indiscretions, his other runs ins with the school board prove that he is a bit if a dick and probably does not belong teaching kids

    No, no, no. I do not believe that and don’t think anyone else should. I had a few teachers like him and tremendously respected them. However, every one of them eventually worked his way out of a job. Our system, as it exists, does not benefit gifted, creative teachers any more than it does gifted, creative students.

    but my interest in this marathon subject always was getting you to see how dangerous this type of school intrusions are, and how little they regard the parental rights of the kids they take charge of.

    I don’t disagree with the danger of intrusions, which is why I won’t allow them. Also, if gitarcarver is correct, I wouldn’t shed a tear if the school suffered consequences for violating PPRA.

    However, parents have an obligation to pay attention to what is going on at their kid’s school. When you get a letter in the mail that says, “We’re doing some testing on your kid for emotional/mental development”, you say “NO”. Also, make sure they’re not planning to kill themselves.

    Where I got interested in this marathon argument is how distorted the initial reporting was and how it fed the paranoia. I don’t like the paranoia against every institution, all the time. It’s bad for the social fabric and will be the death of us.

    That, and I was enjoying my first big argument on here in a long time. I’m kind of surprised by the things I’m allowed to get away with. Sometimes, I’m also surprised by the things I get challenged on. When that happens, I go big.

    Thumb up 3

  17. richtaylor365

    Let’s just say I’ve had a negative personal experience with this kind of thing.

    Fair enough

    I don’t see how

    Well, I catalogued about half a dozen ways in the other thread. It is not a matter of “they can’t be trusted”, it’s more that there is no good reason for them to have access to this type of information in the first place, and many bad things can happen as a result.

    The best thing to do is opt out of these surveys for your kids

    It’s not that easy and does little to address the problem. Do you have a copy of the email that was sent to the parents ahead of time announcing this impending survey? Do you know how it was worded? Was it something innocuous like ,”Dear parents, per our state mandate to address the needs of student social and emotional development we will be handing out a survey next week. Each survey will have your students name on it and they will be asked to provide information to better assist us in addressing their needs”. Hey, what parent would be against that, right? So they don’t opt out, then Little Johnny or Suzy comes home and they have that dialogue I already posted, the parents now find out (since the school did not bother to provide them will ALL the questions first) that information concerning their kids that they thought was safe and private is now “out there” for any teacher, school official or any parent volunteer who happens to be seated at that desk, to have access to, very bad indeed.

    You keep using the word “criminality.” I don’t personally associate underage alcohol and drug abuse with criminality.

    Is that all they asked about? You don’t know, do you?

    I don’t see how you can possibly do a mental and emotional assessment with the aim of preventing suicide without addressing those issues.

    Easy, Peasy, Lemon Squesey (props to anyone who can ID the movie). Whatever health classes they have that covers this in school, they can talk about the links between the two without ,”And according to our survey last week, Mary, who admitted to drug abuse, is really at risk, so let’s all make sure we are there for her”. The school does not need to know which students have a past criminal history and which don’t.

    Don’t you think the group of people who researched applicability and legality of these surveys for a year had a better idea of what THEY were talking about than a teacher who got a few minutes?

    Academic types do not have the same priorities as the parents. Their attitude is the more information the better, “If the student has indulged in prior criminal activity, knowing about it will better assist us in identifying him (branding him more like it) as a “at risk” student.

    If the parents were so disengaged that they didn’t bother to ask questions about the survey

    Isn’t the onus on the school to identify what areas (some rather personal) that the survey covers? And you don’t know if some parents did try to get more info. but was stonewalled. A survey advertised as helping the emotional needs of the students, then without warning veers off into intrusive areas, how where the parents suppose to know?

    I had a few teachers like him and tremendously respected them.

    I would not respect a teacher that “lost it” several times, the way this one did, and if I was a parent in that school district I would go out of my way to get a different teacher. To me it is analogous to a cop who has a problem with excessive force, he can be punished and say he won’t do it again, but it is in his nature, and sooner or later, it will manifest itself again.

    I don’t disagree with the danger of intrusions, which is why I won’t allow them.

    Famous last words. Sometimes you learn about them after the fact, like many of these parents did.

    Thumb up 5

  18. Thrill *

    Do you have a copy of the email that was sent to the parents ahead of time announcing this impending survey? Do you know how it was worded? Was it something innocuous like ,”Dear parents, per our state mandate to address the needs of student social and emotional development we will be handing out a survey next week.

    I shit you not. My default response on everything is “No”. Mrs Thrill has to talk me into letting the kids take field trips.

    If I found out this kind of thing was going on and they were trying to smooth it over at the Thrill-ling’s school, I’d ignite a riot that would make Dryden smile.

    Is that all they asked about? You don’t know, do you?

    That is what Dryden and the media have mentioned. It’s all I can authority speak to as far as illegal activity goes.

    Their attitude is the more information the better, “If the student has indulged in prior criminal activity, knowing about it will better assist us in identifying him (branding him more like it) as a “at risk” student.

    I see that as paranoia.

    Isn’t the onus on the school to identify what areas (some rather personal) that the survey covers?

    Definitely. The Superintendent acknowledged as much.

    I would not respect a teacher that “lost it” several times, the way this one did, and if I was a parent in that school district I would go out of my way to get a different teacher.

    Wait, did we just switch sides or something? Are we allowed to do that?

    Thumb up 2

  19. hist_ed

    National Masturbation Month ended on May 31

    So if my normal frequency is 1x/day, so I up that to 2x/day for the month or make the session last longer or . . .

    I am at a loss how to commemorate. And why wasn’t the President pumping this commemoration?

    Thumb up 2

  20. Thrill *

    And why wasn’t the President pumping this commemoration?

    He gave a speech. Was really pounding on it. The podium, I mean.

    Thumb up 3