Re: the requirement that the state *provide* an education

In article <g6ovi2$5fg$1$8300dec7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Sarah Vaughan says...
>
>Banty wrote:
>> In article <vaur84p9ve6ion5o7p8jebca0879k313kb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Nan says...
>>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT), Beliavsky
>>> <beliavsky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If parents are using illegal drugs but are not directly involving the
>>>> child in their activities (for example by having the child take drugs
>>>> or buy the drugs), I am uncomfortable with calling in the police
>>>> because of what a child says or because of his/her appearance.
>>> Why am I not surprised you'd say this....
>>>
>> 
>> In my county we had a family of five, both parents and three elementary
and
>>junior high school aged boys, murdered one night in their home and their
house
>> burned down as a cover.  The culprits, who were both recently
convicted, were
>>drug dealers who had constant business with the father, who was also a
dealer.
>> 
>> Their parents were proud, we were told later by associates, that they
"kept
>>their kids out of" their drug dealing by only doing deals after their
bedtimes,
>> etc.
>> 
>> So these boys were not directly involved in the drug dealing.  Would
you say
>> that were *affected*??!?
>
>Of course, and tragically so.  But they would also have been 'affected' 
>by being whisked off into foster care.  And, based on what I've read 
>about the whole attitude to illicit drugs in the US (and I will accept 
>correction if I've picked up the wrong picture here), I do feel there's 
>a real risk that this might happen even in cases where the parents *are* 
>providing a loving and decent home to the children despite their drug 
>use.  

No one is suggesting searching the house of every student.  We're talking
about
cases where the drug use is *so* affecting a student that people outside
the
venue of the home are noticing it on the student.  That in itself means
not a
loving and decent home.

At that point, it may be decided at some point that foster care is better.
 Is
it *good* - of course not.  It's a bad situation.

The only cases discussed where the problem is apparent by smell only -
believe
me a meth lab is not a good place, or a safe place, nor a loving or decent
place
either.


>I think that sort of thing, rather than the situation re****ted in 
>an earlier post where a child came to school having actually *taken* a 
>drug, is what Beliavsky may have been talking about.

He may have not taken the drug directly; he may have been having contact
highs. 
(Which is one of my objections to mj although some people think it's no
big deal
- it's not a drug people can keep to themselves.)

Banty