COVID-19 Thread [V2.0]

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Honestly, I'm not really loving what the kid did. The principal sounds like a dweeb, and they should probably focus on actually following the protocol, but I'm not super jazzed about another kid filming other kids without their consent, their parents' consent, and blasting it all over social media. Most daycares now have opt-in things where you have to permit them to post photos of your kids on social media.

 

I don't like the idea of kids filming stuff at school and posting it online. It makes me uncomfortable for the other kids and for the teachers. Obviously, this happens all the time, but with the attention it attracted I probably would have been expecting to get in trouble. In this specific case, the school has a bigger problem, but I don't have an issue with the suspension really because it's not a precedent I'd want to set.

[CheeseheadInQC]

Honestly, I'm not really loving what the kid did. The principal sounds like a dweeb, and they should probably focus on actually following the protocol, but I'm not super jazzed about another kid filming other kids without their consent, their parents' consent, and blasting it all over social media. Most daycares now have opt-in things where you have to permit them to post photos of your kids on social media.

 

I don't like the idea of kids filming stuff at school and posting it online. It makes me uncomfortable for the other kids and for the teachers. Obviously, this happens all the time, but with the attention it attracted I probably would have been expecting to get in trouble. In this specific case, the school has a bigger problem, but I don't have an issue with the suspension really because it's not a precedent I'd want to set.

There's a decent chance that the school has that policy (my wife worked for a small-town newspaper for a decade-plus and I believe the local schools put that policy in place either before she got there or very early on in her tenure). I'm not sure I've ever heard of a case where that rule had been used against another student, though.

 

In order for the suspension to be legitimate on those grounds 1. It would have to be explicitly stated in the handbook as being against the rules and 2. a five-day suspension being the standard punishment for such offenses. The former for me is a coin flip, but I would be absolutely shocked if the latter were true. And if both of those aren't true you are punishing her for the video going viral (which she didn't really have control over) or because it made administrators look bad (a really dangerous precedence to set).

[stoutdude04]

The problem I have is the principal literally said its because it made the school look bad. Had he ssid you cant film other students...okay. I can understand that.

[MrTPlush]

There is absolutely zero reason the student should have been suspended...zero.

[stalton]

I talked to my friend who is a teacher for Kenosha had some interesting things to share. In their survey, most teachers wanted virtual learning but most parents wanted in school learning citing no ability to watch the kids during the day. My friend said her opinion was that this was very social economically driven. Which makes sense to me. Alot of the KUSD families are already on food stamps,etc.

 

Also with the rules in place if they do have in school learning, is that anybody who tests positive or shows signs of Covid, triggers a shutdown of that entire classroom for 14 days or a negative test. By Kenoshas policy, any cough by little Johnny means 25+ kids have to stay home for 2 weeks or get tested on their own

[stoutdude04]

I talked to my friend who is a teacher for Kenosha had some interesting things to share. In their survey, most teachers wanted virtual learning but most parents wanted in school learning citing no ability to watch the kids during the day. My friend said her opinion was that this was very social economically driven. Which makes sense to me. Alot of the KUSD families are already on food stamps,etc.

 

Also with the rules in place if they do have in school learning, is that anybody who tests positive or shows signs of Covid, triggers a shutdown of that entire classroom for 14 days or a negative test. By Kenoshas policy, any cough by little Johnny means 25+ kids have to stay home for 2 weeks or get tested on their own

 

This makes no sense. I sometimes wonder if people have any idea what goes on in an elementary school. There are more runny noses and coughs in a day than anywhere else.

 

Our district has told us that if we or a child is showing any symptoms we are supposed to stay home. However, we arent receiving extra sick leave, so how many teachers are going to follow that? I'd say about 20-30 days a year are taught with a cough or cold of some kind.

 

My principal just called me today and asked if I would teach virtually for this year because they had more parents sign their child up for virtual learning than they anticipated. I'm debating about doing it for a few reasons, but most of all I am pretty sure we are going to have kids test positive and the district has sent out no plan for if that happens. I also have a baby due in October, so this might be a nice way for me to save my leave time.

[tmwiese55]

Well that's exactly the problem we discussed yesterday and how a different plan has to be come up with, as that one is not feasible. you're right, that's what happens in a normal school. But the problem is there is no way to know if that runny nose or cough is covid for a few days. So the alternative is to just say eff it and let them keep mixing it up for days potentially spreading it to the other kids, those kids parents, etc. You're in a rock and a hard place. You saw first hand in baseball how much it spread in a group being preemptively tested every day with one day results. the situation being put together involves no testing until after symptoms and then waiting days for results.

 

Call me crazy, but maybe we should've gotten ahead of testing instead of putting in our heads in the sand until end of March.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

There is absolutely zero reason the student should have been suspended...zero.

 

Sure there is. I don't know anything about the school but if this was a violation of a pre-existing policy they can suspend the kid. Going viral itself can't be the reason, and the principal looks like a doofus, but this absolutist statement just isn't fair. The kid can be doing the right thing and still be justifiably suspended. I remember when I was in HS a bunch of kids got detention for 'walking out' to protest the Iraq War. It's not quite the same, but there is still a reason she can be suspended.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm still not believing that a kid walking into class and sneezing is forcing closures on any significant scale. You'll get a few cases where that happens but most people are going to use some common sense. There are runny noses and coughs every single drop-off at daycare. They do temp checks, and our school is also doing temp checks, but those are sketchy at best. The policy that's written out isn't necessarily the one that's followed in practice. I doubt any school would put in writing that their official policy is "hacking up a lung is OK, as long as there's also not a fever."

[PeaveyFury]

There is absolutely zero reason the student should have been suspended...zero.

 

Sure there is. I don't know anything about the school but if this was a violation of a pre-existing policy they can suspend the kid. Going viral itself can't be the reason, and the principal looks like a doofus, but this absolutist statement just isn't fair. The kid can be doing the right thing and still be justifiably suspended. I remember when I was in HS a bunch of kids got detention for 'walking out' to protest the Iraq War. It's not quite the same, but there is still a reason she can be suspended.

 

I actually agree here. There apparently is a 'no sharing photos' policy in the student handbook, and the school seems to be within their ability to suspend her for violation of that policy.

 

Now, what is actually going to cause serious problems for the school is that there will prove to be a zillion other examples of students violating the same policy without any sort of disciplinary action. Any competent lawyer/legal advisor for the student in this case will be able to correctly argue that she was singled out because of both the negative publicity of the school (as the principal's subsequent announcement so stupidly gave a clear case for), and to punish her for expression of an agenda that went contrary to that of the principal or district.

 

You can correctly argue that they have standing to suspend her, but you can certainly argue for legal and possibly ethical reasons it was a really bad idea to do so.

[nate82]

I actually agree here. There apparently is a 'no sharing photos' policy in the student handbook, and the school seems to be within their ability to suspend her for violation of that policy.

 

Now, what is actually going to cause serious problems for the school is that there will prove to be a zillion other examples of students violating the same policy without any sort of disciplinary action. Any competent lawyer/legal advisor for the student in this case will be able to correctly argue that she was singled out because of both the negative publicity of the school (as the principal's subsequent announcement so stupidly gave a clear case for), and to punish her for expression of an agenda that went contrary to that of the principal or district.

 

You can correctly argue that they have standing to suspend her, but you can certainly argue for legal and possibly ethical reasons it was a really bad idea to do so.

 

I believe there has already been cases brought up by a few families who have had kids suspended because they shared on social media they were at a gun range with their parents. I believe the courts ruled that the school could suspend them. Taking those rulings sets a precedent and this is 100% legal for the schools to do. So there is nothing that can be done for this student. I'll have to look up the court cases again but I am fairly certain this was the outcome.

[homer]

I actually agree here. There apparently is a 'no sharing photos' policy in the student handbook, and the school seems to be within their ability to suspend her for violation of that policy.

 

Now, what is actually going to cause serious problems for the school is that there will prove to be a zillion other examples of students violating the same policy without any sort of disciplinary action. Any competent lawyer/legal advisor for the student in this case will be able to correctly argue that she was singled out because of both the negative publicity of the school (as the principal's subsequent announcement so stupidly gave a clear case for), and to punish her for expression of an agenda that went contrary to that of the principal or district.

 

You can correctly argue that they have standing to suspend her, but you can certainly argue for legal and possibly ethical reasons it was a really bad idea to do so.

 

I believe there has already been cases brought up by a few families who have had kids suspended because they shared on social media they were at a gun range with their parents. I believe the courts ruled that the school could suspend them. Taking those rulings sets a precedent and this is 100% legal for the schools to do. So there is nothing that can be done for this student. I'll have to look up the court cases again but I am fairly certain this was the outcome.

 

The suspension in Georgia has been lifted per the girl's twitter feed.

 

Re the other case:

ACLU filed suit on behalf of the students in that case. Not sure what the result was...if there was a result:

https://reason.com/2019/04/11/high-school-gun-snapchat-suspension-aclu/

 

"The Supreme Court has held that public schools may not arbitrarily infringe on student's free speech rights unless the speech in question is substantively disruptive to classroom proceedings."

[PeaveyFury]

Thanks for doing the legwork on that, homer.

 

In this case, it's not just about judicial precedent, it's also about enforcement precedent. If they had routinely enforced a 'no photo' policy in the past, they'd have had more ground to stand on. Absent that, which is almost certainly the case, it becomes a selectively-enforced 'speech discrimination' issue, and that's a problem for the district in any case.

[PrestigeWorldwide]

I applaud the student for doing what was necessary to shine light on this, regardless of the consequences. It is very obvious that the school didn't care, so complaining would have made no difference (the principal said that she should have brought up her concerns with the administration instead, yes I'm sure that would have forced them to take action the same way this backlash has). The only thing that was going to force real change was to do what she did.

[stoutdude04]

Also read a second grader in the same district tested positive after the first day and a nurse in that district quit, citing it was unsafe for children(something along those lines). I wonder if the district said they were going to do 'x' to keep children and staff safe, but for whatever reason those plans didnt work.

[stoutdude04]

The suspension has been lifted.

[tmwiese55]

I assume most on this topic have seen the one in MS/AL somewhere of a school with a bunch of positive tests of kids and staff 2 weeks in and something like 120 people quarantined. I did not read any details so take it with a grain of salt as sometimes there is more to the story once you look at facts/details, but doesn't look good. Seemed like a HS to me in the bit I saw.

[nate82]

I actually agree here. There apparently is a 'no sharing photos' policy in the student handbook, and the school seems to be within their ability to suspend her for violation of that policy.

 

Now, what is actually going to cause serious problems for the school is that there will prove to be a zillion other examples of students violating the same policy without any sort of disciplinary action. Any competent lawyer/legal advisor for the student in this case will be able to correctly argue that she was singled out because of both the negative publicity of the school (as the principal's subsequent announcement so stupidly gave a clear case for), and to punish her for expression of an agenda that went contrary to that of the principal or district.

 

You can correctly argue that they have standing to suspend her, but you can certainly argue for legal and possibly ethical reasons it was a really bad idea to do so.

 

I believe there has already been cases brought up by a few families who have had kids suspended because they shared on social media they were at a gun range with their parents. I believe the courts ruled that the school could suspend them. Taking those rulings sets a precedent and this is 100% legal for the schools to do. So there is nothing that can be done for this student. I'll have to look up the court cases again but I am fairly certain this was the outcome.

 

The suspension in Georgia has been lifted per the girl's twitter feed.

 

Re the other case:

ACLU filed suit on behalf of the students in that case. Not sure what the result was...if there was a result:

https://reason.com/2019/04/11/high-school-gun-snapchat-suspension-aclu/

 

"The Supreme Court has held that public schools may not arbitrarily infringe on student's free speech rights unless the speech in question is substantively disruptive to classroom proceedings."

 

I looked up that one and there was no decision which is good. I thought there was a decision made but there wasn't.

[stoutdude04]

I assume most on this topic have seen the one in MS/AL somewhere of a school with a bunch of positive tests of kids and staff 2 weeks in and something like 120 people quarantined. I did not read any details so take it with a grain of salt as sometimes there is more to the story once you look at facts/details, but doesn't look good. Seemed like a HS to me in the bit I saw.

 

I did not see it at a school. I did see it at a Georgia summer camp. 260 positives out of 344 I think it said. The scary part is all staff and campers had to be tested and had to be negative before coming. However, the tests had to be done within 12 days of coming.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

No one wore masks at the GA camp, which I believe was an overnight camp. It was stupid.

[stoutdude04]

No one wore masks at the GA camp, which I believe was an overnight camp. It was stupid.

 

True, I was just pointing out that I hadnt heard about a school. I do think the concerns are real though.

[adambr2]

Mask wearing is important, and I wear one regularly as required, but mask shaming has got to stop. There are plenty of legitimate medical reasons for people not to wear one. I have a friend with two autistic children, for example (one older), and taking them out in public is already challenging -- (not to mention her children are still trying to adapt to a masked society), without worrying about comments or dirty looks in public.

 

If you see someone without a mask on and you're not responsible for that business or venue, mind your business, keep your distance if it makes you feel better, and move along with your day.

[stalton]

Whenever I see somebody in public without a mask, I do not assume they are just rebelling or not believing in masks. I've come across enough people with medical reasons that I don't assume. HOWEVER. When somebody without a mask complains about people who wear masks, that's usually when I give the stare.

[MrTPlush]

There is absolutely zero reason the student should have been suspended...zero.

 

Sure there is. I don't know anything about the school but if this was a violation of a pre-existing policy they can suspend the kid. Going viral itself can't be the reason, and the principal looks like a doofus, but this absolutist statement just isn't fair. The kid can be doing the right thing and still be justifiably suspended. I remember when I was in HS a bunch of kids got detention for 'walking out' to protest the Iraq War. It's not quite the same, but there is still a reason she can be suspended.

 

Sure there is probably some rule or policy to justify it...probably always is. That isn’t really the point. No school, even if within policy, is going to suspend a kid because they share a photo they took during school. Realistically any reasonable school is going to give a verbal warning of, “hey don’t do that again” and explain it. A crummy school is going to punish them in some form that isn’t suspending them. To suspend them in this case is beyond pathetic and the school is taking out their own failure on a student for calling them out. The administration should be ashamed (they probably aren’t) and community members shoulder be furious.

 

Getting suspended from school is essentially max punishment for a student. Taking a picture is not grounds for max punishment...especially in the length they got. I don’t know about other districts, but any I have been apart of or know of that length of a suspension is pretty dang hefty. If they did this constantly or if it was a bad/offensive/inappropriate picture then sure...suspension. However, we all know why this student got suspended and it wasn’t really taking a picturing....it’s because the school got offended because the student made them look bad.

[igor67]

You are at risk of being overly cynical and under appreciating the privacy issues schools are responsible for upholding TPlush. Just on the details posted that would be 2 separate violations of our technology policy (having the phone in class and unauthorized sharing). You also do not know if the student has been disciplined before about related infractions which naturally escalates any punishment. Invariably in any instances like this the school can do very little to properly explain itself because it continually has to safe-guard any students right to privacy (even if the student is broadcasting information). It is very frustrating to live through when you know the real story but can't share it.