But then you tell me what money teachers would make if no students showed up to school. You can't force someone to go to school. If they don't want to go, they won't go. You'd have to chain them to a desk, which then they wouldn't learn anything being taught.

They actually pretty much do just that. If you're under a certain age (varies by jurisdiction, I think it's generally at least 16, it's never over 18), you are legally required to go to school. If you're skipping school without a valid excuse, it's an offense; truancy laws are enforced by the police, and can result in fines or potentially jail time for the parents; students can literally be forcibly returned to school by police if they're skipping. And teachers still get paid, because even if kids are only in school because they're forced to be there, teachers are still working and still entitled to payment for work. Children generally have no right to refuse education. The rights given to minors in a public school are actually sort of limited; they aren't entitled to the full range of rights an adult has, for instance (in a private school, rights against various forms of government action obviously don't apply anyway). Children have the right to an education and to the protection of the laws; federal law gives additional rights, such as equal opportunity for disabled children (which is one reason a kid might have a right to preferential seating, in which case they can't be forced to sit in the back). But the claim that a teacher's job depends on the approval of the kids, like they're customers or something, is flat-out wrong -- even if a teacher's job is eliminated because kids are sent to private school, that's the parent's decision to make, not the kid's (unless the kid is over 18).

I'm going to say it's going to vary state by state.

Heres something from the horses mouth in Texas: Texas ACLU Youth Rights.

Side note:
Truancy in California - They take it very seriously. It's a lot of lost money. My local LEA's have joint taskforce with the School District LE. They basically do Truancy Sweeps which mirror Warrant Sweeps.

The laws on the books have drastically changed since I was in school. But so has the schedule (way shorter days) and "No A/C, No School" policy... I remember having to do PT in this heat, passing out and getting told "You're not done yet".

Don't eat chicken wings for dinner doing PT in heat the next day. Not fun :D

They actually pretty much do just that. If you're under a certain age (varies by jurisdiction, I think it's generally at least 16, it's never over 18), you are legally required to go to school. If you're skipping school without a valid excuse, it's an offense; truancy laws are enforced by the police, and can result in fines or potentially jail time for the parents; students can literally be forcibly returned to school by police if they're skipping. And teachers still get paid, because even if kids are only in school because they're forced to be there, teachers are still working and still entitled to payment for work. Children generally have no right to refuse education. The rights given to minors in a public school are actually sort of limited; they aren't entitled to the full range of rights an adult has, for instance (in a private school, rights against various forms of government action obviously don't apply anyway). Children have the right to an education and to the protection of the laws; federal law gives additional rights, such as equal opportunity for disabled children (which is one reason a kid might have a right to preferential seating, in which case they can't be forced to sit in the back). But the claim that a teacher's job depends on the approval of the kids, like they're customers or something, is flat-out wrong -- even if a teacher's job is eliminated because kids are sent to private school, that's the parent's decision to make, not the kid's (unless the kid is over 18).

I do understand your point, and I will admit that I was wrong on several fronts. However, you've just proved my main point. 

 

I know of several students that would rather rot in federal prison, than go to school and get an education. At a high school level, students should know right from wrong. I don't agree that someone at a high school level of education, should be forced to attend school. That person is old enough, and should be smart enough to understand the consequences of not attending school. It doesn't take a genius to know that the chances of you making a living without an education, are slim to none. If someone really doesn't want to attend school, they won't. Regardless of what the law says, the consequences, or who enforces the law. They just won't. They'd probably just go to school and shoot the place up, or try to sell drugs, or distract people who actually want to get a good education from, doing so. Since they're being forced to go anyways, why does it matter? If I don't want to learn something, I'm not going to pay attention. I'm just gonna to do anything I can to have a good time. This is my view on students being forced to attend school.

 

When I say that teachers work for students, I didn't mean that literally.  It's a two-way deal. Teachers need students, and students need teachers.

I think that the Teacher (at least at my school) is in control of what happens in his/her classroom. I go to a private school and it is just ridiculous. We follow dress code, which I am fine with, but if you simply forget your belt you are at risk of detention. Some teachers allow drinks, food, gum (ect.) but others may not. My Chemistry teacher allows us to listen to music and eat gum. On the other hand, my Geometry teacher gave someone a detention for having a drink because we aren't supposed to have drinks in the "Academic Hall". I know this doesn't pertain to rights more than it pertains to rules. Some teachers make rules that are unreasonable in my opinion. And other teachers have what seems to be more respect for their students and allows them simple freedoms. That is just my 2 cents.

Edited September 16, 201411 yr by 1ian20

You see that basically everywhere. In public schools like the one I went to, teachers are restricted to enforcing school rules, but school rules tend towards the ridiculous side (e.g. during my first year at my high school, all students had to wear IDs around our necks at all times; precisely one teacher I'm aware of enforced the rule, a few administrators enforced it when they felt like it, and no one else cared at all [in shop class, you were *prohibited* from wearing your ID, because it's actually dangerous to do so around power tools]). After my sophomore year, they said all students had to stay in the cafeteria area or outside during lunch; we couldn't wander the school, and could only go to a classroom if we had a pass from a teacher, and we weren't supposed to ever eat in classrooms. Some teachers cared, most didn't (so for the ones who cared, it was actually weird that they did).

You see that basically everywhere. In public schools like the one I went to, teachers are restricted to enforcing school rules, but school rules tend towards the ridiculous side (e.g. during my first year at my high school, all students had to wear IDs around our necks at all times; precisely one teacher I'm aware of enforced the rule, a few administrators enforced it when they felt like it, and no one else cared at all [in shop class, you were *prohibited* from wearing your ID, because it's actually dangerous to do so around power tools]). After my sophomore year, they said all students had to stay in the cafeteria area or outside during lunch; we couldn't wander the school, and could only go to a classroom if we had a pass from a teacher, and we weren't supposed to ever eat in classrooms. Some teachers cared, most didn't (so for the ones who cared, it was actually weird that they did).

To this day I just walk right past security during lunch, and wander the building. May even stop by to see some of my buddies in their classes.

I would assume being on the property of the school, utilizing their facilitates you must abide by their rules, while this gets messy with the obligation of schools to their students but regardless

I'm fairly certain somewhere in your school's rules its says something along the lines of "sit down, shut up, and let the teacher teach" (much more elegantly put of course), which being on the school's property the rules must be abided by 

 

I can't say I very familiar with how laws reguarding schools work, so if I'm wrong please correct me

 

But

overall the idea of the topic "students having rights" there aren't many answers to because if we gave students "rights" than arguments would erupt in every class over a student's "rights" the moment a teacher made a decision they didn't like and therefore nothing would get done in class. If there are no guidelines for students "rights", than it is intentional, it is to ensure school runs smoothly and kids are taught properly and that "violations" of student's "rights" won't cause problems that interrupt the education of kids

 

Even if students don't hold any "rights" there is little sympathy given, yeah I've had some real shitty jerk off teachers but your not living in a 3rd world dictatorship with your life at stake, your a student in a class for usually 1 period (approx 1 hour) that has to put up with it, in that case it makes the student sound like a whiny bitch when they talk about not having "rights" 

 

 

Edited September 16, 201411 yr by RexCramer

Students have some rights in public schools by virtue of the fact that public schools are government bodies; schools don't have unlimited regulatory abilities. Students also, as I've mentioned a few times, have certain rights via federal law - educational bodies refusing to enforce them forfeit all federal funding (in practice, this makes them binding on just about all schools, including private colleges, while still being within the federal government's powers).

Yeah I get what a lot of you are saying, in my opoion the only few rules at my school that I find absolutely ridiculous is the 'boys are not allowed to wear piercings rule' but then you have to remember it's the district who made those rules not the admisnatrators, now the rule about the I.d all I have to say is this it's just a damn I.d just put it on and move on with your life just about every job out there requires you to wear an I.d :o, but yeah it's the teachers class and since he/she is the one giving you the education you shouldn't be arguing with the teacher over any rules they have their class.

Yes, but I doubt that teachers chose their job just for the money, especially in America. Every teacher I've talked to, chose to be a teacher because they love to work with students. They love sharing their knowledge, and assisting others in mastering that same knowledge. Then when the students take a test and pass, it makes the teacher feel great. The fact that they taught something to someone, and that person understood and mastered it. If no students, not a single person, showed up to school, what money would the teachers be making? I wouldn't want to pay someone for sitting in an empty room doing nothing. Not only would they be getting paid for nothing, but they'd probably be disappointed that nobody's come to hear and accept their knowledge. 

 

Without students teachers would be virtually, jobless.

Give me a call when not a single student doesn't show up to class for several days in a row.

Give me a call when not a single student doesn't show up to class for several days in a row.

This is why I dislike debating with you. I can debate with almost everyone else and have no problem.

This is why I dislike debating with you. I can debate with almost everyone else and have no problem.

Hey now let's not fight each other, why can't we all be friends?

Hey now let's not fight each other, why can't we all be friends?

Because it's hard to debate with someone that's blatantly sarcastic.

If you are in the U.S. = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

boys are not allowed to wear piercings rule

That would be a limited protected act. What the school is doing is in violation. See Tinker v. Des Moines Sch. Dist. 393 U.S. 503 (1969). As long said piercing does not disrupt classwork or school activities or invade the rights of others.

 

Ruling

The Supreme Court sided with the students. Students and teachers don't "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," the Court said.

 

The Court did not, however, grant students an unlimited right to self-expression. It said First Amendment guarantees must be balanced against a school's need to keep order: As long as an act of expression doesn't disrupt classwork or school activities or invade the rights of others, it's acceptable. Regarding the students in this case, "their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth," the Court said. "They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder.

I found this Top 10 Supreme Court Cases Involving Schools

This is why I dislike debating with you. I can debate with almost everyone else and have no problem.

I think the reason you don't like debating with me is because you don't like what you are hearing. You said that teachers wouldn't have a job if no students showed up to class, but how realistic of a scenario is that? I can introduce crazy scenarios to backup my point too, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't like that either.

When you enter a school as a student you are essentially giving up your rights, the property is owned by the city or school board and you are there only to learn. The only property you own is your body and whatever you bring with you to school, and you can be searched at anytime at least in the U.S.

 

This topic is unnecessary like always but what right could you possibly have to be insubordinate to a teacher or any authority figure on a school campus? You wont see that amendment in the constitution...

 

If you have assigned seats or are told to more temporarily because of your behavior than you do it. Now if you refuse then you can gladly accept the disciplinary action such as referrals and possibly suspension.

 

This kid was probably just being a jackass and just wanted to be defiant for the attention or just to make a statement, I was like that in high school and i look back and wonder why i did that, I'm  actually embarrassed by my behavior now. 

I think the reason you don't like debating with me is because you don't like what you are hearing. You said that teachers wouldn't have a job if no students showed up to class, but how realistic of a scenario is that? I can introduce crazy scenarios to backup my point too, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't like that either.

I completely agree here!

I think the reason you don't like debating with me is because you don't like what you are hearing. You said that teachers wouldn't have a job if no students showed up to class, but how realistic of a scenario is that? I can introduce crazy scenarios to backup my point too, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't like that either.

Yes I agree, you're completely right.