I agree with your statement. Just providing an explanation of why the student was disciplined.
Fortunately, the teacher was also fired for breaking the rules. A teacher should never bully a student. It's not a good way to gain the respect of the rest of the students in the class. And, it's an adult telling the children that bullying is OK.
No... I'm not a zero tolerance, or follow the rules at all costs. Just trying to explain why the school felt compelled to punish the child. What I do believe is that and 11 year old child should not be carrying a cell phone. If they are carrying a phone it should be voice only, not texting, pictures or games. And, it should be set to dial only two numbers - home, or 911.
The rules were clear. Cell phone use in the classroom by anyone was prohibited.
Also, Bullying was prohibited, and for that, the teacher was fired.
Yes... because the student should not have been using the cellphone. The student should have gone to the front office, or to her parents, and reported the incident.
If a group of people stops an attacker from raping someone, and decides to hang the attacker, the group members can all be charged with a crime. The group after stopping the attack should hold the attacker for police.
Granted,there is no right to expect privacy in a classroom setting in a public school. What is not being considered, is that the school set in place a regulation (which applies to teachers and staff, as well as the pupils)to prohibit use of cellphones for the express purpose of minimizing the number of distractions which keeps the school from fulfilling its primary mission - making certain that students get the full benefit of an education.
Cellphone use was prohibited because it can be, and is, a significant distraction. The punishment for the student should stand. However, the actions of the student, did expose the poor behavior and teaching skills of the teacher,
We don't need a broadband amendment to our Constitution. We do need to put restrictions on lobbying. All telecommunication carriers spend a significant amount of money on lobbying. A first step could be to create a special business classification for telecommunication carriers. Then disallow deductions for lobbying on Federal and State income taxes. Then add a tax on top of any lobbying activity.
We don't have adequate broadband services in this Country because it costs less to lobby legislators than to provide the services.
Rural areas don't have service for several reasons. First - overly restrictive access to rights-of-way on public roads; second - excessive requirements not to disturb the environment.
Where we do have broadband services, the cost is 2 to 3 times higher than most other industrialized countries.
I received a letter from Comcast stating that I could get free Wi-Fi service when I was near a Comcast hotspot by simply using my account login. They didn't say where theri hotspots were located. I opened an app on my tablet which provides Wi-Fi signals available in my area. I discovered that there was someone on my channle with the same signal stregnth. I also noticed that whenever I hit the enter key on my desktop computer, that there was a "spike" in my channel signal which was mirrored by the other user. I called Comcast and asked why this was happeneing. That's when I discovered that they were allowing the public to use my router. I asked the tech to turn off this feature in my router. Comcast charges me too much money!!!
The FCC required Name, address and phone number in order to leave a comment. This was not an optional requirement. I can understand if a corporation wants to file a comment, but why does the FCC need personal identification from an individual?
We don't pay for bandwidth, we pay for access (connectivity). Brian - the robber baron - is claiming that we should pay extra for faster access. Theoretically, we are paying extra money to be able to download at 50mbps, however, most of us rarely get better than 30mbps. So much for net neutrality!
Brian - the robber baron - wants Netflix to pay for actual bandwidth used. Most enterprise (Netflix, GM, Walmart, Maryland Department of Transportation, etc.) users pay for access, and bandwidth usage.
Brian - the robber baron - is actually not delivering on promises to the home user. He's stealing from us!
Everyone pays for internet access. Yes... you can use a computer at a Public Library, or connect via wi-fi at a coffee shop without paying. However, the Library and the coffee shop are paying for the internet access.
If meta data from telephone call records is considered 3rd party information, then Google (and all others) search records are most likely considered in the same category. What's stopping the NSA from requesting this type of data?
Stating that Section 215 has a lot of watch dogs is ridiculous. The NSA comes under the Executive Branch of Government, as does the Justice Department, Treasury (IRS), and all of the other departments. The only real protection we have is the courts and our elected representatives. But, we allow the executive branch agencies to control the information provided to our representatives and justices.
We have learned a lot about our enemy operates since 9-11. Surely we can develop protections against those type of attacks without a wholesale usurpation of our basic rights as American Citizens!