kitchen table math, the sequel: One more reason to homeschool

Friday, June 14, 2013

One more reason to homeschool

The court held 9-5 that despite compulsory education laws the school did not have a "special relationship" with its students that would give rise to a duty to protect them from harm from other students.

District Not Liable in Student Bullying, Appeals Court Rules
Mark Walsh | June 06, 2013


Anonymous said...

From the article:

"As for the state-created danger theory, McKee said the Morrows' suit seeks 'to redefine clearly passive inaction as affirmative acts' by school administrators and thus must fail."


"In one incident, the perpetrator attacked Brittany in the lunchroom and because Brittany defended herself, she was suspended along with her attacker.

For that and other incidents, the perpetrator was charged in juvenile court with assault, making terroristic threats, and harassment. She was adjudicated delinquent and ordered to have no contact with Brittany. The perpetrator was nevertheless allowed to return to Blackhawk High."

It seems that allowing the student who is doing the assaulting to return to school is "passive inaction" by the school administration.

Who knew?

-Mark Roulo

Anonymous said...

Second comment.

I don't like using the term bullying for "assault."

A better title for the article might be "District Not Liable in Student Assault, Appeals Court Rules."

Yep ... your kid is legally required to be there, the student beating the crap out of your kid has the *right* to be there, and no one at the school has any obligation to prevent the assault.

Oh, and if you defend yourself, you get suspended.


This sort of thing is one of the reasons that my wife is leaning towards homeschooling through high school. She *isn't* worried about our kid being assaulted ... she just doesn't want to entrust her child to adults who seem to have the judgement of backward clams.

-Mark Roulo

Anonymous said...

"The Morrows say in their suit that when they brought those incidents to the attention of school administrators, the officials suggested they might want to consider another school for their daughters. "

Yup. That's what my son's school said to me. 'So sad your son is being something we refuse to call bullied (because that would mean we have to do more paperwork) but we'd all be happier if he left.'

You want your kids to be safe, don't send them to school.

TerriW said...

I have been told -- with dead seriousness -- that by homeschooling my children, I am denying them the opportunity to be bullied and then they won't know what to do when they go work in an office.

So by that line of thought it would seem that this article should be re-titled reasons to *not* homeschool.

SteveH said...

And watching "The Office" and the reality show du jour should be required for all students because they are expected to fit in, not find a new job or turn off the TV.

School choice (with more choices) is the only answer.

Glen said...

This is part of a larger body of legal precedent in which the courts have ruled that even the *police* have no legal obligation to defend you. On many occasions and in many jurisdictions police have stood by and watched a victim being violently assaulted without any attempt to intercede. It was not a question of whether they could do so safely. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police, like any other bystanders, could voluntarily help you or not, as they wished.

The police have frequently said the same thing as that school: "It's not our job to defend you, and we won't tolerate you endangering your attackers. You should move somewhere else."

Anonymous said...

This seems more like a case where the police drove the assailant to the victims house, then did nothing as the victim was assaulted.

The school *allowed* the person committing the assaults to return to school (that was the passive inaction). Not quite the same thing.

But, yeah, I'm sure that the court saw a pretty strong similarity.

-Mark Roulo

NB: A good example of "the police have no obligation to help" would be Kris Kime.

From Wikipedia: "Kime was bending over to help a young woman who was lying on the ground and being attacked. As he bent over, he was struck on the back of his head by Jerell Thomas. He fell onto the pavement and struck his head again. As he lay there, other rioters began to kick him. His friends and others surrounded him to protect him.

As he lay dying in the streets, police officers stood on the sidelines and watched. His friends ran to the police and asked for assistance. The police were instructed they could not enter the riot zone, so they did not intervene. Off-duty fire department workers and his friends carried Kris out of the zone onto a nearby street. He was placed in a police vehicle, driven to Harborview Medical Center, and placed on life support. He died later the following night."

Ian Ausden said...

Needed to post you one small note to be able to thank you very much over once more for all the extraordinary advices you have debated in this post. This has been so incredibly generous of people like you giving unhampered just what most of us might have promoted for an ebook to make some dough on their own, particularly observing that you could have attempted it in the event you desired. All those recommendations again worked well to get simple way to fully grasp that some of us have a comparable desire the same as mine to recognize more and more with regard to this matter. I’m sure-enough there are several more pleasant occasions ahead for those who look at your blog.