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

In article
<83cc1910-6d43-4bc3-ab5c-5f76aeb830da@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Sarah V. says...
>
>On Jul 30, 1:01 pm, Banty <Banty_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article <g6ovi2$5fg$1$8300d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,SarahVaughan
says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Banty wrote:
>> >> In article <vaur84p9ve6ion5o7p8jebca0879k31...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Nan says...
>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT), Beliavsky
>> >>> <beliav...@[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.
>
>Although *you* were talking about that, I'm not sure Beliavsky was.  I
>think there's an apples-and-oranges conversation here where what he
>was actually referring to was the situation where a child is saying
>things that clue a teacher in to the fact that some sort of illicit
>drug activity is going on, but where this does not appear to be
>affecting anything in the child's behaviour or in the parents'
>behaviour towards the child.  I think it perfectly reasonable to raise
>some queries about the wisdom of calling the police in such a
>situation.

Good point.

I understand Beliavsky's concern was a broader one.  It does bear
discussion if,
aside from the meth lab issue and the drug use issue (including contact
highs)
and the issue of clear effects of neglect + mention of drug use by
parents,
there is mention of drug use by parents by a kid thats not neglected
apparently,
merits notifying an investigating agency.

That *is* a case like the family in my county though - by all school
official
and neighbor accounts, the boys were doing fine.  It wasn't a meth lab.

They're still dead.

And the boy described in this thread with contact highs puts to bed the
idea
that "just marijuana" is OK.

Banty