Facebook Photos Land Eden Prairie Kids in Trouble

slim-t writes "The Star Tribune is reporting that students have been disciplined for photos of them on Facebook. 'Eden Prairie High School administrators have reprimanded more than 100 students and suspended some from sports and other extracurricular activities after obtaining Facebook photos of students partying, several students said Tuesday.' Is the school right to do this? My opinion is that the students should know not to post pictures of yourself breaking the law." I'd just like to know what all those administrators are doing cruising Facebook pages looking at the students in their school.

Hah.

[Futile Rhetoric (1105323)]

"I'd just like to know what all those administrators are doing cruising Facebook pages looking at the students in their school."

Looking for delectable jailbait, of course.

Re:Hah. [[ Supposedly pics were delivered

[by Anonymous Coward]

Supposedly the pics were delivered on a CD (maybe a DVD) to school administrators. The person who delivered it is either unknown or not being identified. (disclosure/source: My sister-in-law attends EPHS. I'm anonymous for her sake.)

Re:Hah. [[ Supposedly pics were delivered

[vistic (556838)]

Probably delivered by a kid who got picked on by the popular alcohol chugging kids.

I was in the EP school system from Kindergarten until halfway through 9th Grade... and I recall it was pretty clique-ish and people were particularly nasty and cruel to other kids.

Most people might say it's the same in every high school, but I went to 3 high schools my freshman year (EPHS inclusive). And the high school in Connecticut and especially the high school in Arizona were a LOT nicer in terms of students' attitudes and treatment of other students.

Sounds like revenge!

Re:Hah.

[DrSkwid (118965)]

> I'd just like to know what all those administrators are doing cruising Facebook pages looking at the students in their school.

Masturbating, of course. The internet means you don't have to wait for the goddamn yearbook any more!

Re:Hah.

[John Courtland (585609)]

I know you're joking, but I've seen it happen. I worked at a high school for a while and we monitored all traffic looking for keywords. Also, any AIM traffic was logged, and any traffic to/from myspace was logged. We caught a bunch of kids doing some really stupid shit because they updated their myspace pages from school. I believe some of them lost scholarships over it. Oops.

Re:Hah.

[John Courtland (585609)]

Oh yeah, it took a LONG time with the district's lawyers to make sure things were kosher. There's nothing wrong with logging all the shit they did. Every parent signed an agreement stating all computer activity was logged, every login was prompted by a legalese message stating all activity was subject to logging.

Not that I'm all bonered up about annihilating a kid's future because he/she did some stupid shit while they were young, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Using school equipment to post pictures of highly illegal exploits is beyond that line.

Re:Hah.

[John Courtland (585609)]

I'm glad someone got some use out of my post. Certainly there are less than desirable aspects of America. But I don't need some holier-than-thou European to point them out, especially when it's based on some fictional account of events he/she invented in their head and not relevant to the story in any manner. I know plenty of great Europeans, I work with them all day. That said, there's plenty of shitty ones too. It's not like America has a monopoly on assholes.

Re:Hah.

[John Courtland (585609)]

In my case, it's possible but not probable. It would have taken quite an effort to generate the leagues of information (mostly photos) we managed to gather before the hammer fell on these kids. These were very explicit images of people doing very dumb things. Not only that, but the user accounts matched and everything. It would have been more work than just earning the scholarship justly, I'll tell you that. We were very thorough, lawsuits are not good PR, especially right before a referendum.

In the case from the article, that could be certainly be true. I'm glad I'm no longer in school and that when I was I didn't give a rusty rat fuck about scholarships or any of that. It's far too cutthroat for me.

Re:Hah.

[Futile Rhetoric (1105323)]

"I guess because I am a teacher and my kids have added me on facebook and I've looked at a few of their photo galleries, then I must be a pedophile."

No, but it certainly helps!

Won't somebody think of the children?

[Hognoxious (631665)]

Won't somebody think of the children?

Er, wait ...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yes Helen, they ARE thinking of the children.

WHAT they're thinking of the children, though, you probably don't want to know.

Re:

[davidsyes (765062)]

Yeh, maybe they just want a little "Prairie Home Companion(ship)"...

Don't they have anything better to do?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Really, it seems kind of strange that school administrators would find these kinds of things without someone explicitly bringing it to their attention. Don't they have better things to do than sit around and look at pictures of the students? The argument could be made that this is pretty creepy.

Also, if the students are breaking the law outside of school hours, isn't that a matter for the police and not the school?

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[Hatta (162192)]

Also, if the students are breaking the law outside of school hours, isn't that a matter for the police and not the school?

This is the crux of the matter. Yes, those kids are idiots for posting evidence of illegal behavior for all to see. But the administrators have no jurisdiction over what goes on outside of school. He should have reported these pictures to the police, if anything.

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[mabhatter654 (561290)]

but in one case, the party was last school year...before the kid "promised" not to drink, no harm done at all!!! there's no dates on this stuff, so the administrator is probably going to find himself sued if a proper lawyer gets a hold of this.

As far as taking pictures of doing something illegal, who cares, like one girl in the article said, they're just PICTURES..they don't prove the kids were DRINKING and even if they did, unless you are caught COMMITTING the act, the police can do nothing (except maybe stake out your party spot for next time!) if I was an enterprising kid, I'd take a bunch of pictures of my friends with EMPTY cans...and call a lawyer!! again, the administrator is getting into trouble here.

I understand the whole "teaching kids to be ethical" thing and "representing the school", but these are PUBLIC schools, no code of ethics applies to students required by law to go there except the LAW. Perhaps the principal could address the issue with PARENTS (who's job it is to raise kids!!!), but it's completely out of line to punish students for random events that happened sometime in the past... that reeks of corporate-fascism!!!

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[EightBits (61345)]

You're all missing the point. The reason the school administrators are punishing the kids instead of reporting them to the police is to avoid giving (or adding to) the kids' criminal records. Kids do all kinds of things and sometimes these things are illegal. In this case, these kids may have been doing something illegal. The administrators are trying to punish the kids so they learn not to do it again.

What if your parents caught you doing something illegal? Should they not punish you? Should they instead go straight to the police and turn you in? What kind of Gestapo bullcrap is that? Do you really want to live in a police state where you can't even confide in your own parents?

Consider the options. "You take the punishment we are dishing out or we turn these photos over to the police. Which do you prefer?" Most kids will take the school's punishment and they would be right and smart to do so. The school may or may not be dishing out appropriate punishment and that needs to be figured out. But they are at least trying to do the best thing for these kids and that is to discipline the kids without the extreme of getting the police involved.

There will be some who decide to not post their photos on facebook/myspace/etc... But most will still take pictures and that's still a liability. The school wants them to just not do these things in the first place. While they can't control people like that, they can influence and that's exactly what they are trying to do and that is the whole damn point of punishment.

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[uniquename72 (1169497)]

he reason the school administrators are punishing the kids instead of reporting them to the police is to avoid giving (or adding to) the kids' criminal records.

Incorrect. Guess what the police would do if they obtained pics of these underaged kids drinking? Absolutely nothing, because it would be impossible to prove that what's in those containers is alcohol.

As others have said, this all has to do with one thing: power. It's a lot easier to control kids than it is to teach them, so that's what schools do.

Fucking pathetic.

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[miskatonic alumnus (668722)]

The lesson is not to stop "wrong" behavior. The lesson is not to get caught.

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[LrdDimwit (1133419)]

They couldn't REALLY do that. Not and live up to their assigned responsibilities. The school administration ultimately answers to the parents; parents send their kids there expecting the school to conduct its affairs in a certain way. If enough parents don't like something about how the school rears their kids, guess what, the school will cave or it will go under. While some of the parents of the kids featured in that photo might not object, by far the majority will.

So really, they couldn't ignore it. Someone slipped them a CD with photographic proof, the cat's out of the bag. If I'm whoever sent that CD, and the school tries to ignore it -- I grab a copy of the student directory, and mail a copy of the CD to each and every students' house, addressed to the parents, with a nice letter explaining the administration not only knows about this, but is actively covering it up. And if I REALLY want to be nasty, I also send one to the channel 5 news, and the channel 7 news, and MADD, and the local state's attorney's office (among others), with the same insinuation -- 'School supports underage drinking!' tends to get headlines. {Not that I personally would do such a thing myself -- but whoever sent that CD obviously wanted to get these kids in trouble.)

Like it or not, avoiding this kind of political firestorm is part of the job of running any organization, schools are no different; they're supposed to be teaching the kids, not focusing on managing PR disasters. So no, the school administration can't ignore this.

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[causality (777677)]

If their child told them that they first sexually abused someone and then murdered them and dumped them in the river, should they not report this? I think you'll immediately say they should report this, but how do you draw the line? What objective standard of what crime is bad enough that it warrants reporting?

It's pretty simple, really. If that "crime" has a victim, report it. If not, then let people make their own mistakes, especially if you're talking about something like drinking a beer. The most severe action that is warranted in that case is informing the parents. To compare that to sexual abuse and murder is absurd; to put it (very) mildly, this is comparing an apple to an orange.

I know this idea is very scary to all of you law-enforcement-fantasy types who really think you can legislate morality, but controlling behavior is the least of your problems. If you really believe that putting a substance into your own body that someone else might disapprove of is morally wrong, what you need to improve is the power of your message and the reasoning behind it, not the government school's power to manipulate behavior by means of sanctions. The first option might actually persuade people to see things your way; the second option will drive said behavior underground and result in people who are better at not getting caught (namely, by not posting evidence on a public network).

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[MBCook (132727)]

My guess would be some teacher caught a student goofing around on that FaceBook page, recognized what was going on in the pictures, and that's where this came from. I agree the administrator has better things to do than search FaceBook for this.

The kids are morons (but what do you expect from a 15 year old with the chance at "fame"). The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club. The 1/2th rule about Fight Club is don't take pictures and post them on the 'net.

Is this legal? I'd say... yes. Kids have no privacy. They aren't adults. They deserve to be punished if they broke the rules. Now I have two ideas at this point. If they violated a code of conduct that they signed (like for a sport), then they need to face the consequences. They chose to do it. If it's a private school, kick 'em out if you want if they violated the rules. If it's a public school and the kid isn't in any activities, you don't have any authority to punish them, since there isn't anything to bad them from.

Either way, if the pictures clearly show them drinking, those should be turned over to the police/DA. If they want to do something, they will. If they don't, it's over. But there are crimes there (drinking underage, drinking and driving probably, supplying alcohol to a minor, probably others).

But really, they need to learn their lesson. When you do something illegal/wrong... you don't document it and post that on the 'net for everyone to see. That's just plain stupid.

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

Kids have no privacy.

None whatsoever?

Note to administration: warrantless-wiretap the children to get the dirt on their parents.

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[lastchance_000 (847415)]

From the Minnesota State Legislature: [ros.leg.mn]

340A.503 PERSONS UNDER 21; ILLEGAL ACTS.
Subd. 3. Possession. It is unlawful for a person under the age of 21 years to possess any
alcoholic beverage with the intent to consume it at a place other than the household of the person's
parent or guardian. Possession at a place other than the household of the parent or guardian creates
a rebuttable presumption of intent to consume it at a place other than the household of the parent
or guardian. This presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[Tmack (593755)]

From the Minnesota State Legislature: [ros.leg.mn]

340A.503 PERSONS UNDER 21; ILLEGAL ACTS.
Subd. 3. Possession. It is unlawful for a person under the age of 21 years to possess any
alcoholic beverage with the intent to consume it at a place other than the household of the person's
parent or guardian...

Here in Georgia, they have been running ads and propaganda about how drinking under 21 is harmful and illegal, including parent's hosting of "drinking parties" for their underage kids. While the laws here are obviously different and still heavily conservative/religiously based (one of 3 states with no sales on Sunday still enforced as a State law, which the governor refuses to repeal (vetoed again last year on the basis that it teaches "time management") ), citing that drinking anytime, any amount before being exactly 21 years old as harmful is ridiculous. Kids will do stupid things, and when I have them, if they want to drink, they will whether I want them to or not. I would rather they do it with supervision of an adult, preferably me. This is about as idiotic as the policy of "stop handing out condoms because it encourages sex" crap. Arresting parents for doing what they are supposed to: monitoring and supervising their kids to keep the stupidity under control, is counter productive. Its also evidently not a state law as identified here [nih.gov], though they sure make it seem that way.

To re-link this thread back to the article, kids do stupid things, but the control of that stupidity is their parent's responsibility. The school really has no right to dig into the non-school activities unless it poses a threat to the school itself. If, as has been said higher up, these activities were reported to the school, the school's responsibility ends at notifying the parents and possibly local authorities (if legal infractions are severe enough: ie property damage).

Enough ranting....

Tm

Re:Don't they have anything better to do?

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

In the USA the drinking laws vary on a per-state basis. In all of them it is illegal to buy alcohol to under the age of 21. In some states it is illegal to drink under the age of 21, even in the privacy of your own home supervised by your parents (although this is rarely enforced).

Here in the UK you are not allowed to buy alcohol until you are 18 but you are allowed to drink on private property from the age of 5.

Re:

[jasonla (211640)]

In many states, students (kids under 18), are the responsibility of the school between the hours of business. Technically, the teachers/admins are the parents between 8 am and 3 pm. So they can punish as they see fit, regardless of when said activity occured. Also, the school provides sports and other activities, and it's in its purview to remove them as well.

Re:

[c_forq (924234)]

It has been a while since I have been in High School, but I am guessing the administration didn't purposfully and didn't want to get involved in this. My guess would be someone, an angry someone (either parent or student), reported this. If it is like most administrations I know, the administration would say "well, we don't really know about this facebook thing and have more important stuff to do", as schools really don't like to bring negative attention to themselves, especially regarding student behavio

Isn't it easy?

[cthulu_mt (1124113)]

I don;t use Facebook, but don't they have a feature to group people by what school they attend? An administrator would just have to sign up for his own school then just browse profiles while filling out detention slips.

Maybe it will be a good lesson to these idiots not to document their wrong-doing.

Re:Isn't it easy?

[C0rinthian (770164)]

I wouldn't necessarily be too keen about my own child drinking under age, but I wouldn't be at all happy about his invasion of privacy either - I'd consider that stalking.

If the pictures are posted to a profile with public access, what privacy is there to invade? You can't put these pictures up on display, then get upset that people see them.

Rights not online

[Kohath (38547)]

Time to repeal the drinking age.

This isn't a "rights online" question. It's a natural consequence of the stupid prohibition laws we have. They need to be repealed.

If the only way anyone found out about the drinking was looking at Facebook after the fact, then how was it harmful?

Re:Rights not online

[truthsearch (249536)]

Kids taking pictures of themselves demonstrating that they aren't mature enough to drink responsibly...

How is that? According to the article one kid was just holding a drink. Another was standing behind a bar. The article makes no mention of any crazy antics. You're making that assumption because they're young and got in trouble.

The problem here is the system, not the students.

Re:Rights not online

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

21? What country is this? Iran?

Surely you're not telling me the legal drinking age in the US is 21? Hell.. I the worst hangover of my life was the day of my 16th birthday when I could finally drink legally (everyone in this country drinks illegally from about 14). The second worst hangover was at the school party that year where they'd thoughtfully provided free drinks..

You'll never learn to drink responsibly unless you've drunk irresponsibly a few times when you're younger. OTOH I was drinking wine with meals at 7 years old, so was kinda used to it by then.

I'd say both sides are wrong

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

I think that the kids are pretty stupid to post photos of themselves doing illegal things on the Internet, but neither is it the administrators' business to be scouring Facebook for such things. Their job is to deal with things as they're brought to their attention, not be a surveillance force.

Yeah, right.

[ivan256 (17499)]

Danny O'Leary, a senior who plays lacrosse, said his dean displayed four Facebook photos of O'Leary holding drinks and told him he was in "a bit of trouble." One photo shows him holding a can of Coors beer, another a shot of rum, he said. In yet another, O'Leary is pictured holding his friend's 40-ounce container of beer.

"I wasn't drinking that night," O'Leary said.

First off, the kid is a liar.

Second of all, if he's freely distributing evidence of himself breaking the law, he's lucky it's just his school that is punishing him.

Third, he's lucky it's just him getting punished and not his parents.

Kid breaks law, gets in trouble. The internet was mildly involved. News at 10:00. Bitching on Slashdot at 9:30.

Re:

[blankinthefill (665181)]

You are still ignoring the question that has been brought up again and again in these discussions. Did the administrator have the power to punish a student for an activity not sanctioned by, held in, or related to the school in any way? I think its pretty clear cut that, as long as the student was not drunk at the school, this is an incident where the administrator is clearly overstepping the bounds of their disciplinary powers. He does NOT have the power to punish a student for a crime outside his jurisd

Re:

[Logger (9214)]

Correction. The school has no obligation to punish students for non-school related activities.

Most schools I know of have codes of conduct which prohibit such behavior, whether in a school function or not. At a minimum that code of conduct typically states something like "you shall obey the law at all times".

So, obligation no, right yes.

My wife is a high school teacher...

[by Anonymous Coward]

She scans her students myspace pages all the time. It's pretty incredible what kind of information they put up.

She doesn't do it because she's out to get them, though. If she learned that a student was smoking weed at a weekend party, it's not like she'd call the cops on them. I think she does it just to get a better sense of who her students are as individuals, and can then better tailor her instructions to each individual.

Let's say Katie is really emotional, and loves to answer questions in class. However, Katie has just gone through a rough breakup with her longtime boyfriend (we learn over myspace)... My wife would be a bit more understanding about why Katie is acting so depressed.

Or, she may learn that a student routinely smokes pot in the bathroom every morning before class. She might pay extra attention to that student, and if she smells pot on the kid while he's in class, she can certainly get the administration involved.

Or kids might comment about a stolen test. Or how they hacked into the computers and changed grades. It's crazy what they'll write about.

The point is, of course, don't put up information that you don't want your boss, teacher/SO/parents/whoever to read.

Posting anonymously for hopefully obvious reasons. :)

Re:My wife is a high school teacher...

[PixelScuba (686633)]

Flamebait. You're obviously not a teacher or any type of leader/instructor so I'll just assume you're ignorant and tell you why it is important to know about student's lives.

First, this isn't just a good idea for a teacher... if you want to communicate with someone... be it as a Supervisor, Boss, Teacher... understanding that person as an individual will greatly help you communicate with them and create a rapport that will allow them to trust you as well. As for teaching... it is an incredibly intimate subject, everyone learns differently and you play to each person's strengths and weaknesses to help them learn best. The young boy who loves art might learn from hands on activities more than the girl who sits with her nose in a book and would rather just do rote worksheets to learn.

One of the hardest jobs I ever held was a substitute teacher. As a sub you rarely make those connections with students and you are just a person in the room covering for the teacher... who knows them best. You don't know the kid who lives in a motel room because they are too poor to afford an apartment... and how that might affect his learning. No, I'm sorry, but from my experience you are completely wrong... in fact Schools probably need more of the OPPOSITE... more teachers need to understand their students and their backgrounds. Public Education has its problems that need repair... but needing more teachers detached from their student's personal lives is NOT one of them.

Just a thought...

[daemonhunter (968210)]

Knowing several teachers, I have to ask this: is it at all (naively) possible that this admin is doing what he thought best? It seems to me like he's trying to straighten out these kids' lives (at least by his interpretation of life, mind you.)

It's surprising, I know, but some teachers actually care about their students. Not just whether they make the school look good at scholastic meets and football games, not just whether they pass all their (irrelevant) standardized tests. Some teachers care whether or not Joe Quarterback makes it home from prom nite. They actually care whether Suzie Cheerleader makes it home from prom nite unfertilized.

Just a thought. I didn't have the greatest high school experiences myself, but even I know not all school officials are malicious animals prowling 'That Facebook Thing' for whom they may devour.

There is, in fact, some middle ground left to on which to stand.

Bizarre

[BlueParrot (965239)]

Being Swedish I find your alcohol policy absolutely bizarre. Schools policing students about what they do in their spare time? If a teacher did that over here they would probably get into legal difficulties as a result of it... Heck, my physics department has a student run pub in the basement and one of my lecturers even gave the students some time to advertise it. Despite of this ( or maybe because of ) we have a lower rate of alcohol induced diseases and a lower alcohol related crime rate.

I'm guessing this is the consequence of some "traditional" political opinions, much like Sweden insisting on having a state monopoly on alcohol, despite it being quite clearly demonstrated that it does nothing to prevent minors from obtaining it ( which is pretty much the argument in favor ).

Re:Bizarre

[Lumpy (12016)]

Almost every single USA law is based on Puritan ideals that started a long time ago. WE firmly believe that restricting people and controlling them is for their own good. Restrict alcohol, hell we even banned it for a few years for incredibly stupid reasons. We are doing the same now for drugs and sex and anything else deemed to be "unholy" or "bad" based on old Puritan ideals from over 300 years ago.

It's the root of our obesity, and almost every other problem that the rest of the world seems to not have.

Problem is , today you are called a nut for questioning the puritanical ideals.

The other problem is the whole point of the article shines light on a bigger problem.. Our children are incredibly stupid. They do things they know are wrong and will get them in trouble if their parents or officials find out about it, and then they publish it with incredible detail in a public forum and then SIGN IT!

The current crop of children here are incredibly stupid.... I blame the use of Corn syrup.

Re:Bizarre

[webweave (94683)]

I believe this is real reason for prohibition,

"... John D. Rockefeller was not concerned with family dynamics in the working classes. But he was influential in changing the goals of the movement from temperance to prohibition. As we know, his contribution to the outlawing of the production and sale of alcohol was successful. Of course, Rockefeller and the oil companies reaped tremendous profits as a result. Remember that the period covered by the 18th Amendment (1919-1933) coincided with the huge rise in the sale and operation of automobiles. America was on the move, and all of these cars were now operated solely on gasoline. By the time that the 21st Amendment was passed, ending the prohibition of alcohol, the standard was already set and worked completely in the favor of the Rockefeller family" (http://dgrim.blogspot.com/2007/06/great-scheme-alcohol-based-fuels-ford.html)

Rockefeller the leader of Standard Oil wanted to stop the public (mostly farmers at the time) from producing their own alcohol which was widely used as a fuel for cars and farm equipment. This is a pattern to manipulate public opinion and use the government as an enforcement tool to benefit the rich and powerful. See Randolf Hurst, DuPont and hemp prohibition.

Your rights do not apply at School

[Children.of.the.Kron (1175875)]

Personally, at my school, they have a policy that if you violate a policy outside of school grounds within sight of a school official, or a school official is latter reported of the policy you broke, you will be reprimanded as if you were on school premise. People don't seem to remember that youth are still citizens, and are granted all the rights of the constitution. Schools extend and deploy their power in scary ways, forever under the umbrella "For the Children."

Revenge of the nerds

[greg1104 (461138)]

You say you're a nerd who is picked on by the popular jocks. Do I have a plan for you!

1) Take a buddy nerd and sneak into a party where your victim will be (since you're a nerd you obviously weren't invited)
2) Hand the jock a beer, have your friend snap a picture during that second he's holding it (but before you're being pounded with it)
3) Post picture to Facebook using a fake account
4) Wait for jock to be suspended

I'm still trying to figure out how to fit "Profit!" into there as well. Maybe blackmail?

All these "well you shouldn't have posted the picture" posts are forgetting the very common case where someone snaps pictures of a bunch of people and posts them all onto Facebook. It's amazing how fast the camera phones can go off if you do something stupid even for a second at a party.

Student need a bill of rights

[by Anonymous Coward]

I can attest that student rights are frequently struck down in the name of In Loco Parentis. IMO, if it doesn't happen at school or occur while traveling to/from thereof, the school should not have the right to discipline those actions. Having spent K-12 in Fairfax County Public Schools (VA), I endured the most strict, archaic and otherwise bass-ackward rules outside of private schools. Examples:

• A fellow fourth grade student was caught possessing a beeper at school. FCPS believed the only reason anyone would possess a beeper would be to facilitate selling drugs. The student was expelled. His mother had given him the beeper the previous day so he would know when she was ready to pick him up from soccer practice. FCPS kept the ban on cell phones and beepers until 9/11, but not before threatening to suspend students who were trying to contact parents who worked in the Pentagon that day.
• A girl at my middle school was caught with a can of pepper spray. Her parents had given her the mace because she lived less than one mile from the school (FCPS does not provide transportation to students less than 1 mi from school) and had to walk through a rough neighborhood each day. She was suspended.
• My school once let out early and had a student fair on the soccer field. Attendance on the field was not mandatory, but students could not leave school grounds without a note from a parent. The administration was so concerned with our attendance that every student who left early had their car fully searched to make sure they weren't taking home other students.

Unfortunately, FCPS holds all bargaining chips before students even enroll. They force each student sign a "Student Responsibilities and Rights" document essentially stating you understand FCPS has the right to deal with you any way they please should you screw up. If you don't sign it, they won't give you a locker, a parking spot, nor allow you to participate in after school activities.

If school administrators stumble upon pictures of a student doing something illegal, but not while at school, they should report it to the police, and the buck stops there. If a student's "extra-cirricular" activities don't interfere with school, then schools shouldn't interfere with them.

My Two Cents

[krunk7 (748055)]

When I was a teenager, I had a friend who saw the school principal at the grocery store. After making eye contact, he gave him the middle finger. The principal was understandably irate and the following Monday suspended him.

When his parents found out, they called the principal and made it abundantly clear that he was far, far outside his bounds and pushed until the school rescinded the suspension. Don't think he didn't suffer consequences, they were just delivered by his parents whose duty it is to do so outside of school.

The duty of school officials is to discipline and teach students within the school environment. From 8-3 or on school grounds, that's it. Period. The minute the child leaves school grounds, he's under the purview of the law and his guardians. The second school officials leave the school grounds, they're just average folks. No legitimate power over and above any other schmo.

Re:My Two Cents

[Deanalator (806515)]

In the article, it explains that the only kids that got in trouble were the ones on the sports teams that signed the "no drug" agreements.

I'm from EP

[(arg!)Styopa (232550)]

I'm from Eden Prairie.
"I'd just like to know what all those administrators are doing cruising Facebook pages looking at the students in their school."
Short answer: They weren't.

An anonymous person stopped by the high school and dropped off a CD containing the images saved off numerous Facebook sites.

Links as well, I believe, but am not sure. Of course speculation is that it was some kid who wasn't invited; I rather speculate it was a parent who was sick of the hypocrisy of the rules never being enforced, and dropped it off to confront the administration and FORCE them to act.

And for the Europeans who feel our 'policies on alcohol are bizarre': let's remember - to participate in student athletics in Minnesota, EVERY student must sign a pledge to entirely abstain from alcohol or tobacco as a student athlete, and (as I recall, it was 20 years ago I was in EPHS) even to avoid being PRESENT at such activities. Say what you want about the motivation behind the rule, the simple fact is that every one of them signed such a promise and are now blatantly proved to be breaking it. Busted.

My cynical view is that I would like to know WHEN this CD was dropped off. EP is a perennial powerhouse dominant in the local football league...coincidentally football season *just* ended 6 weeks ago. So no real penalties nor damage to the football team.

Re:I'm from EP

[DeVilla (4563)]

And for the Europeans who feel our 'policies on alcohol are bizarre': let's remember - to participate in student athletics in Minnesota, EVERY student must sign a pledge to entirely abstain from alcohol or tobacco as a student athlete, and (as I recall, it was 20 years ago I was in EPHS) even to avoid being PRESENT at such activities.

Excuse me? I'm a parent of elementary school kids in MN. I'm not saying these kids in Eden Prairie weren't idiots, and if my kids are ever at a one of these parties I'll string them up myself. All the same, this agreement goes too far. I will be in the office of the high school chewing out the administration if they ever try to make my kids sign something like this or exclude them from sports that my taxes pay for over this.

My wife and I don't drink or smoke and never really have aside from the occasional toast at a wedding or a new year sparty. Still this is too draconian. What about communion at church? They can't even be present? They can see their uncle when he has a lit cigarette? I couldn't allow them to toast at new years?

Each new years my folks use to let me and my brothers have a sip of wine and made us eat sour kraut for luck. It was a tradition. (I haven't eaten kraut since. My luck has been fine.) My wife is Italian enough that we eat spaghetti with the secret family meatball recipe at Christmas. Her family makes all sort of other Italian dishes and also finds a glass of wine to be obligatory. The school would tell me my kids can't go to the Christmas dinner at Great Grandma's? That would be another impact that the school has no right to impose.

Perhaps I need to start having words with the school now, before my kids reach high school. And if they confirm this and are not flexible to my wishes for my children, then my lawyer will have to start having words with someone.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Not to defend the school but, from the article, in MN, student athletes sign a pledge saying they will not drink alcohol. The article is not clear about how the school obtained the pictures, it is possible they were given to the school and the school did not go out to find them. But, when you have evidence showing kids doing something they pledged not to do, you have to act.

Similarly, if the kids had been busted by the police, the police would notify the schools and the kids would be suspended from games. T