Teacher under fire for informing kids of their Fifth Amendment rights

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130525/news/705259921/

by nsxwolf • 13 years ago

414 190 13 years ago

tokenadult• 13 years ago

"But John Dryden said he's not the point. He wants people to focus on the issue he raised: Whether school officials considered that students could incriminate themselves with their answers to the survey that included questions about drug and alcohol use."

To me, that sounds like an unusually thoughtful social studies teacher. He is relating the general concepts that he is hired to teach his students to a real-world situation facing the students, and that sounds like good teaching to me. He ought to get a promotion or a raise, based only on this news about his public behavior in the classroom.

It is, of course, sometimes appropriate for schools to distribute surveys to minor students in their care on which there may be questions about student behavior that may be embarrassing or illegal. But the teacher, based on the report here, is just asking his students to think about their lessons and what those lessons mean, not trying to undermine the survey process.

"But Dryden doesn't want this seen as him vs. the administrators. He said he knows they were acting in what they thought was the best interests of the students.

"'These are good, professional, smart people on the other side who want to do what is right by kids,' he said.

"He would rather focus the discussion on the survey.

"'I have asked people (the supporters) to talk about the survey. I think I am a sideshow,' he said. 'This (the survey) was rushed and it wasn't vetted.'

"'I'm not a martyr,' he said. 'I'm trying to refocus people's attentions. Calm down.'"

nsxwolf4• 13 years ago

I really want to understand this "proprietary information" excuse the school is using to justify not releasing the survey. Certainly the kids can go home and tell their parents what they saw (and some have). The kids didn't sign an NDA, they saw it, so why can't we see it?

This story is happening in my town. There is a public hearing tomorrow night and I plan on attending.

TallGuyShort• 13 years ago

Unless it's well-covered by other sources, I would kindly ask you to blog your observations and share them with us :)

btilly2• 13 years ago

My guess is that the survey was bought from a private company on a contract that says it is that company's property and not to be shared. Therefore if the school released the form, they could be sued by said private company both for violating copyright and contract. (And the company would want that because they want to resell the survey to other schools.)

Stupid, yes. But I think it is likely that the school has a real legal barrier to sharing the survey.

CurtMonash• 13 years ago

It's copyrighted information. How much could be released under "fair use" is questionable. Schools abuse copyright in some ways, and probably compensate by being rigorous in others.

Further, if it comes from a company that also offers more conventional achievement kinds of tests, it may come with bloodthirsty NDAs, as a matter of habit for such companies.

psc• 13 years ago

I would try making a FOIA request for the survey—on the school district's website, there's a link for requests: http://www.bps101.net/node/936

markdown• 13 years ago

Yeah, that's really weird and wouldn't fly in my country. There is nothing you can show my kids in school that you can legally keep from me.

The public (parents in particular) ought to have the right to know everything that their kids see.

alanctgardner22• 13 years ago

It's likely a real psychometric survey that the school pays per copy for, and so the company that produced it (like Pearson) treats it as their IP. They do the same thing to psychologists: sell them a survey, and then 'refills' of the questionaire so that they're only allowed to administer the test n times before paying again.

It's an interesting problem, because the companies involved fund studies to improve the diagnostic power of the test (tweaking the questions and scoring), but then lock up what they find out.

(Here's an example of a commercial psychometric survey: http://www.talentlens.co.uk/select/giotto)

specialist3• 13 years ago

There is a public hearing tomorrow night and I plan on attending.

That's awesome. This is what democracy looks like.

I got hooked attending some townhalls on my pet topic. I've learned so much about politics, policy, etc. these last 8 years.

#1 Show up.

#2 Keep showing up.

#3 Bring your friends.

It's ridiculous how few people shape policy. The upside is adding a few more people to the debate can significantly shape outcomes.

If you become credible (learn a topic well enough to speak to all points), and you pack council chambers with your supporters, you will change policy.

Everyone focuses on campaigns. The real action is in policy. Politics is a dirty, filthy business, but it's still worthwhile.

I strongly recommend Camp Wellstone. There's an "activist" track. Anyone aware of methodology or project management will grok their techniques immediately. The focus is policy vs products.

http://www.wellstone.org/programs/camp-wellstone

nsxwolf4• 13 years ago

Standing here now, waiting for it to start. About 100 people here so far.

__--__• 13 years ago

He sounds a lot like my social studies teacher in high school. He was the best teacher I ever had because he was a complete, utter bastard. He didn't care if you had the right answer, you had to back it up with facts. He gave us 5 page papers to do every night and a 10 page research paper every semester. Both of those things were crucial to my development of critical thought and being able to communicate it, something nobody else bothered to teach, even in college.

He was fired a few years after I graduated. Which wasn't surprising - he constantly pissed off the school board and other teachers. Dryden sounds a lot more politic than my teacher was.

DanBC• 13 years ago

Did they risk manage this survey?

What do they do if a student reveals an alcohol problem? Or sexual abuse? Or criminal behaviour?

It's potentially a good idea, but they should have thought it through a bit more before.

EDIT: The company selling the tests have a lot of product available. (http://www.mhs.com/Education.aspx)

EDIT: I might be annoyed if schools are buying these tests instead of textbooks.

genwin12• 13 years ago

Per the school's zero tolerance policy, students who reveal alcohol or drug use are expelled at no risk to the school. I don't agree with their method but it is pretty simple.

grecy2• 13 years ago

Wow. Are the students told that beforehand?

I think a shocking consequence is students will now feel unsafe telling the truth about troubling events (abuse, etc.)

jordonwii• 13 years ago

You sure about that? That'd be downright idiotic.

My school did something similar, but the surveys were anonymous and simply used for aggregate statistics - which sounds infinitely more effective than what this school is doing, anyway.

danbruc• 13 years ago

Does this kind of survey make any sense? Why should somebody answer honestly if the survey is not anonymous and you don't want to admit something? If you want to admit something, such an survey may at best catalyze it. Therefore I would expect that the result of such an survey just does not reflect reality.

You could cross check answers of a well designed survey to get an indication if the answers are honest or not but this does not nearly bring the result close to an anonymous but more honestly answered survey.

TeMPOraL2• 13 years ago

Exactly. So many comments here assume that students wouldn't lie on this survey, which I think is an ridiculous assumption. From my experience, students are afraid to be overly honest on anonymous feedback surveys just because of the possibility teacher will recognize the handwriting. There's no way they would fill in truthfully a non-anonymous survey that could get them in a world of trouble.

diminoten• 13 years ago

I wonder if, legally, kids have identical Constitutional rights. They certainly don't have the 4th (not in the sense that an adult has it), for example, and I wonder if Juvenile courts have to give the 6th.

herge• 13 years ago

The first amendment of the US constitution is curtailed in schools in specific instances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment_to_the_united_s...

coldcode• 13 years ago

Why are questions asked of students copyrighted so as to not allow any visibility to parents? If I had a child required to answer potentially incriminating questions at school I would want public scrutiny, otherwise this becomes a kind of secret inquisition.

danso• 13 years ago

The purported reason is because the survey was designed by a private company who claims the survey to be their intellectual property. Similarly, if a school screened a controversial film, a parent could not ask the school for a copy of said film, because the school doesn't own the intellectual rights to it.

This is a microcosm of what happens when public institutions, whose records and dealings are considered to be part of the public record, uses private contractors. Other public instituions have used this to deny access to what is usually a citizen's right to know: e.g. public worker salaries being maintained by a private payroll company.

dllthomas2• 13 years ago

For a while, this included the text of some laws! My understanding is that got overturned, though (thank goodness).

rdtsc5• 13 years ago

Here is how I see it possibly played out.

* School district sees all these school shootings, news reports of troubled teens, suicides, bullying and how badly it reflect on the district.

* School district employs below average intelligence administrators who are easily manipulated and controlled by contractors, lobbyists, salesmen, suppliers. Either an administrator or one such salesperson from the test administration company came up with the idea of providing these proprietary tests.

* Tests are touted as an easy, spray and pray instrument "just give them this test for which we'll charge $500 a pop and you'll easily weed out ones who (wink wink) need help."

* This is how the school district solves its paper problem, computer problems, fixing the cracks in the asphalt in the parking lot problem. They are approached by salesmen and given gifts and dinners and are sold "solutions".

* The more overpriced and expensive the solution the more sleeker the sales pitch. "You don't want to end up like Columbine, OR DO YOU?" maybe stuff like "What if Columbine happened here, could you tell the parents that you DID EVERYTHING YOU COULD?" and so on.

* It is not that hard to scare these people into anything. At best it was a plain ol' sales pitch. At worst there were shady deals going on "We'll buy your son a new car if you buy this package"

* Test instrument comes with strict copyright rules (not that unusual for psych and personality test packets), disclosure rules, but I don't think that is that uncommon.

* Administrators buy in. Cha-ching for the testing company and all is well, ...

* Except for one teacher who actually is doing his job and applies his subject to the real world. So we have this story.

* Now I wonder how frequent this stuff is and how many other school districts are doing this, but which don't have teacher like this who like to "stir the pot".

LekkoscPiwa2• 13 years ago

>School district employs below average intelligence administrators who are easily manipulated and controlled by contractors, lobbyists, salesmen, suppliers.

So if the corruption is the problem why they don't get questioned by the Police?

GhotiFish• 13 years ago

If my daughter answered that she was using drugs on a survey, with her name on it, which was then publicly released, it could have serious ramifications. That information could do serious harm to her future prospects if anyone grabbed the data and started making hiring decisions. Or grabbed the data and started blackmailing. If I had a daughter, anyway.

Frankly, the schools shouldn't have that information, it's dangerous. While it can save lives, it can end them just as easily.

rdtsc5• 13 years ago

Interesting take on it. I attribute this more to their incompetence and plain 'ol stupidity. I imagine people who can think better in general don't aspire to be school administrators. Some teacher perhaps love teaching kids and are dedicated, administration and bureaucracy attracts a special breed of people... and let's just say that these are not usually the brightest either. But what they have learned and do well is protect themselves. The constant threat or funding withdrawal from the govt, the threat of law suits, the threat of reputation if say a student goes "mental".

They have nightmares of being on the stand in court and asked questions like "are you sure you did everything you could to prevent the disaster?"...At least this is probably how testing and psych screening company sold them the packet.

Now their stupidity is also a blessing. If just someone could manipulate them into being afraid of your scenario. Being sued for collecting too much private info about its students. What if they get hacked or someone breaks into the office and steals all those answer sheets with all kinds of strange confessions? Law suits from parents is supposedly this dark deep evil always lurking in their minds. Just need to re-frame the problem so that they see collecting data = increasing risks of getting sued and voila, temporary win.

As a side note, someone on Reddit mentioned taking a similar test (but supposedly anonymous, I say "supposedly" as teacher often can tell the students by handwriting). and putting the most outrageous answers they could in the boxes, mostly for fun. I realized I would have probably have done back then the same thing, just to mess up their statistics. What if didn't end up being anonymous, it leaks and now it is attached to my name for life. Good luck explaining every employer who runs background checks.

jliechti1• 13 years ago

Alumni here.

Wow, this has been circulating among my Facebook friends and I saw the article when it came out. Did not expect to see it on the front page of HN.

I'll try to add a little more information. The article mentions it briefly, but suicide has become a big issue in Batavia[0]. I know of at least the first 2 suicides - two friends (or possibly boyfriend/girlfriend, can't say for sure), roughly 6 months apart. These events were completely unprecedented and were a shock to the quiet, safe, middle-class town.

Major props to Dryden for standing up to the this. Although I never had him for a teacher when I was in school, many of my friends were influenced by him.

I'll ask some friends if they remember any of the survey questions, and post them here if I can.

Also, I look forward to nsxwolf's (another Batavian!) notes from the city council meeting.

[0]: Read a little more here: http://www.kcchronicle.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2013/...

ams6110• 13 years ago

Every such survey that has been given to my kids was always preceeded by a notice sent home, including opt-out instructions if the parent did not wish the student to participate.

When I was in school, I know a fair number of kids just filled in bubbles at random on these things anyway.

danbmil992• 13 years ago

Assuming he's a public school teacher, he's very unlikely to be fired over this, or anything.

danbmil992• 13 years ago

More like Reddit to be downvoted for the truth. Public School teachers in the USA generally have very good job protection, it's a fact. You can say it's fine, there's good reason for it (for instance perhaps in this case), but why downvote a fact?

cpeterso• 13 years ago

> The survey is part of measuring how students meet the social-emotional learning standards set by the state.

What are "social-emotional learning standards"??

theorique2• 13 years ago

Edu-babble word for "age-specific maturity" and similar concepts.

i.e. does the child behave with typical maturity for a child of his age?

rayiner11• 13 years ago

The teacher should be in hot water for teaching the 5th amendment incorrectly. From the text of the amendment: "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness, in a way that might incriminate oneself. Relatedly, it excludes self-incriminating statements in certain circumstances from evidence in criminal cases. While the 5th amendment has been interpreted to apply to many different proceedings (not just criminal cases, as in the text of the amendment), there must be some sort of proceeding of a disciplinary nature.

If the survey results were not shared with the police or intended to be used in a criminal case, it's quite likely not the case that the 5th amendment was implicated at all.

darkarmani3• 13 years ago

That's silly. If the 5th amendment isn't needed here then it is simply overkill. You still have the right to not incriminate oneself. They only way you are correct is if they offered a waiver of immunity for any confessed crimes. This is how they can compel you to speak in front of grand juries. For certain crimes, school officials are required to report them to the police.

rayiner11• 13 years ago

> You still have the right to not incriminate oneself.

No, you have the right not to testify information that would incriminate you in a proceeding. It's a narrower right than you're making it out to be.

pdonis• 13 years ago

there must be some sort of proceeding of a disciplinary nature.

Well, if a student tells school officials he's been breaking the law, that could trigger a "proceeding of a disciplinary nature", couldn't it? I believe there is case law on this sort of thing.

AaronI• 13 years ago

Use of the privilege is not based on the type of proceeding (ie, it applies to more than just criminal cases), but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure that would invite. Precedent has shown self-incrimination is enforceable in non-disciplinary public school "proceedings".

If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.

rayiner11• 13 years ago

There was a case a couple of years ago out of SCOTUS applying the 5th to questioning in the presence of a police officer on school grounds. I'm not aware of anything applying without the potential for disciplinary action.

darkarmani3• 13 years ago

> If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.

This is actually a gray area. My understanding is that this isn't true until the school administrators call the police in. Before that, they are not agents of the police and they don't have to mirandize you. It's also cloudy because the administrators are seen as in loco parentis (in place of the parents). Here is the wikipedia article that details the changing case law around what public school administrators can do w/r/t the bill of rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis#Primary_and_se...

enraged_camel• 13 years ago

In Miranda vs. Arizona, the Supreme Court said that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

precisioncoder• 13 years ago

Thanks for that. I'm not a US citizen and was always curious why it was called the Miranda warning. I just read about the case on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

rayiner11• 13 years ago

Miranda is not implicated because the students are not in "custody" as required for Miranda to apply.

harshreality• 13 years ago

And because admission of drug use could be used in a criminal case against the student, it applies, does it not?

You can invoke the 5th amendment in proceedings that are not currently, but could become, criminal proceedings, on the grounds that your answers may be used against you criminally. For instance, you can refuse to answer questions in a civil case deposition relating to potentially criminal activities. The only way to remove the right against self-incrimination is to grant immunity, which for drug-related offenses means, to be safe, both state and federal government would have to agree.

What's even more sad is that a brief word from a civics teacher got a significant number of students to think twice about taking the survey. Why didn't the students' parents talk to their own kids about the survey? It's a parent's responsibility, as much as it is a civics teacher's responsibility, to discuss civics issues like this with their children. Most of the parents would probably do well to audit Mr. Dryden's class.

csense4• 13 years ago

> Why didn't the students' parents talk to their own kids about the survey?

Maybe the parents weren't told that the survey was asking about potentially illegal behavior and wasn't anonymous.

Maybe the survey's true nature was buried in ambiguous terms or lengthy legalese.

Maybe the survey was opt-out instead of opt-in, and most people took the path of least resistance and didn't bother to do anything with it (if their kids even remembered to give them information that was sent home).

chopsueyar2• 13 years ago

Based on your literal interpretation, the 5th amendment would only apply to the male gender, no?

pfortuny• 13 years ago

No: he is trying to explain that the 5th ammendment was necessary because normal people understand that nobody has the right to expect an answer from you when asking you about your (possibly criminal) behaviour. However, normal people, when the ammendment was written, did not take this for granted when standing as witnesses (because it had not been taken for granted before, as history shows).

So the amendment is necessary not because of the general case (in any circumstances, it is obvious that nobody has the right to expect a self-incriminating answer to a question) but because of the specific case of a witness.

However, nowadays, people seem to need to be recalled that they are not expected to speak against themselves anywhere. Except if they willingly want to do so.

"Did you insult your classmate?" is usually not a legal proceeding. However, answering it one way or the other will help you or not. You do not need to answer that question. But quoting the Fifth for not doing so is ridiculuous: it is way before the Fifth amendment.

josh_fyi• 13 years ago

The right not to incriminate yourself is a basic civil right. The Fifth Amendment is a codification of the right, which was given to you, as our Founding Fathers saw it, by the laws of nature. The Amendment may refer only to some circumstances, but the right was prior to it.

So, the teacher was correct to treat the students about their basic, God-given rights.

rayiner11• 13 years ago

Whose God?

run4yourlives2• 13 years ago

>The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness, in a way that might incriminate oneself.

I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the fifth amendment applies to any and all self incriminating statements that can be used to support a criminal charge against you. This is the entire reason police advise you of these exact same rights at the moment of arrest.

By your explanation, anything you say to a police officer or other figure of authority (in this case the school) that leads to criminal prosecution is fair game. That simply isn't the case.

Entire context:

nor shall (a person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Witness is in reference to the general action; not just sitting on a stand.

rayiner11• 13 years ago

> I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the fifth amendment applies to any and all self incriminating statements that can be used to support a criminal charge against you.

The core of the rule is narrower than that: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment ("The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony.")

It has been broadened beyond that, ("In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom"), but note that Miranda itself is inapplicable because the "custody" element is missing.

I can't find any case law on the subject, but there is an old law review article that discusses some of the issues: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=20....

Even within the framework of the article, which argues in favor of students having 5th amendment rights in general, it's hard to see how a survey aimed at gathering information for psychological evaluation would implicate the 5th amendment. The most likely answer seems to be that it's permissible so long as the student retains the right to invoke the 5th in any criminal action against him.

ctdonath2• 13 years ago

The survey is compelling students, under color of legal authority, to confess to crimes. This confession can later be construed as "discoverable evidence" leading to actionable charges.

The objection here is to "fishing expeditions" wherein evidence is gathered en masse under an innocent pretext, and later (whether planned or not) an authority could gain access to that information and use it against the coerced students. Example: survey occurs, police find evidence of drug crimes with tenuous connection to a particular student, survey results are demanded via warrant by police, confession by student in question is revealed and a whole lotta other students' confessions are found and subsequently acted on.

That the evidence was elicited prior to development of a criminal case does not excuse compelling students to confess, whoever to, to otherwise unidentified crimes. If the evidence exists at the onset of criminal investigation, it cannot be recalled by the suspect under 5th Amendment grounds. That the confession is elicited by the state, to wit the public school, compounds the issue: the government is not allowed to demand evidence of criminal culpability without warranted cause, which is exactly what the school in question was doing.

rayiner11• 13 years ago

Your statement of the rule is both too broad ("the government is not allowed to demand evidence of criminal culpability") and yet insufficiently broad to capture the activity the school engaged in (a survey by the school administration designed to gather information about potential psychological issues).

gamblor956• 13 years ago

Rayiner, you may be a lawyer, but your understanding of the 5th Amendment is on very shaky grounds. Courts have significantly expanded the 5th Amendment rights beyond the mere text of the Amendment.

It is no longer necessary for criminal proceedings to be in progress; it is now sufficient that the testimony could give rise to criminal proceedings. See, for example, Lois Lerner, the IRS official who took the 5th Amendment at a Congressional (i.e., non-criminal) proceeding because the testimony given could have led to criminal proceedings.

dinkumthinkum2• 13 years ago

Well, but the fact is you are never compelled to incriminate yourself. So I think your distinction is without a difference here. The teacher informed the children, who are not lawyers by the way, they do not have to incriminate themselves. I think your distinction is true in a pedantic sense but I think this was a correct interpretation of what you are not compelled to do.

ignostic• 13 years ago

While I'm sure the survey was (probably) administered with the best of intentions, it was poorly anonymized and thus both risky and completely invalid.

downandout• 13 years ago

The teacher was absolutely correct to warn these kids, and it's absurd that the district would to try to punish him over it. No good things can come from answering questions like this on a personally identifiable survey. The school even stated that the intent was to identify and help at-risk students - meaning the information was going to be reviewed, discussed by and disclosed to staff, put in the students' files, and acted upon. There is absolutely nothing that would stop this survey from making it to college admissions offices, law enforcement, parents, etc.

The fact that the district wouldn't have instructed all teachers to notify students of the potential ramifications of answering such questions is a big problem. If any of the data later has a negative impact on someone's child, the district may have some legal liability. This teacher should actually be rewarded potentially shielding the district from a lawsuit.

sk5t• 13 years ago

I should like to see the administrator who initiated disciplinary proceedings against this teacher tried and convicted for treason.

kybernetikos3• 13 years ago

[copied from above, sorry for posting in the wrong place]

Abuse of treason convictions had occurred so much in England that the framers specifically defined it in the constitution (apparently the only crime to get such a treatment).

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I don't necessarily think they were right on everything, but they were right on this. You really don't want to live in a state where Treason is an accusation thrown around lightly.

unimpressive• 13 years ago

No.

mikeash• 13 years ago

In what way could this possibly qualify as "treason"?

maxcan• 13 years ago

The school is also trying to teach students a valuable civics lesson: your rights are minimal and the principle function of the state is the furtherance of the careers of the bureaucrats who compose the state. Anything that inconveniences them will be met with all the power they can muster.

kybernetikos3• 13 years ago

Abuse of treason convictions had occurred so much in England that the framers specifically defined it in the constitution (apparently the only crime to get such a treatment).

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I don't necessarily think they were right on everything, but they were right on this. You really don't want to live in a state where Treason is an accusation thrown around lightly.

emiliobumachar• 13 years ago

You meant to reply to sk5t's comment, did you not? Your explanation seems to make much more sense as a reply to that than to your parent.

bx_3• 13 years ago

Off-topic, but how does it work that when I load that site I get an advertisement for The Lorax (http://i.imgur.com/y6eke4T.jpg), a character with whom John Dryden happens to share several key features? I understand showing ads by keyword (the alcohol ad as alcohol is mentioned in the article several times...) but facial similarity based advertising?! I'm speechless.

logn• 13 years ago

Maybe a coincidence? There's also mention of 'kids', 'school', 'students', etc. However, I'd guess the technology is there to do facial recognition... not sure how that's effective for any advertiser's end goals though... except maybe certain cases of demographics, like if you are on a body building website then you show ads that have people with big necks.

bx_3• 13 years ago

If it's coincidence, it's an incredible one. I reloaded the site two more times, and got The Lorax repeatedly. If it's not coincidence, am I supposed to look at Mr. Dryden and think "I want to see The Lorax... oh how convenient! There it is! click"?

viraptor• 13 years ago

Off topic off topic: i thought he's more like the Big Lebowski dude, especially with the "I'm trying to refocus people's attention, calm down" ending. If Netflix recommended that, I'd be really impressed.

venomsnake• 13 years ago

If only we could remove these pesky kids from the school ... then we could have perfect teaching environment. Perfect lessons with no delay in empty classes. The school will hum like a well tuned V8.

But with their rights, troubles and teenage rebellion - how dare they disrupt the perfect teaching set up by bureaucracy by being themselves.

The fact that a survey is needed means that the system has already failed the students. And the idea of it being non anonymous means that the persons responsible have no idea at all how to deal with children. The school is there to guide the young ones during one very hard period in a person's life. It should be relationship based on trust not intimidation. But instead we get administrators that think of themselves as sheriffs that must be tough on crime.

But the mantra is protect the children (which we do for ourselves) and not do something good for the children.

superdude• 13 years ago

"Superintendent Jack Barshinger said teacher support for doing a survey grew after several suicides by students in recent years. Students and staff typically said they had no idea those teens were in distress.

'We can't help them if we aren't aware of their needs,' Barshinger said."

Honest question: Could a survey to high school students truly help suicidal teens?

prawks• 13 years ago

I can't imagine suicidal teens would be any more likely to admit to suicidal thoughts on a survey with their name on it than they would a counselor/parent/teacher/etc.

josscrowcroft• 13 years ago

Oh America.

TeMPOraL2• 13 years ago

There is no way this survey could have worked anyway. How do they expect that kids - who know their school and parents are against them drinking or using drugs - answer questions truthfully on a non-anonymous survey? The only people I can imagine who would not lie on this survey are kids who care more about the truth than possible consequences to them and kids with an IQ of a potato. And I think the former ones are not the trouble kids the school is looking for.

Fuxy• 13 years ago

Since when is advising people of their rights a punishable offense? Talk about double standards America. "Here's your rights...don't even think about using them or we will punish you!" And the most revolting of all the school board actually think this is ok? I wouldn't want these people training my dog let alone teaching my children.

polymatter• 13 years ago

see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification). Knowledge of its existence makes you unsuitable for jury service (in some jurisdictions).

honzzz• 13 years ago

Social research 101: any non-anonymous questionnaire asking sensitive questions is totally useless. Social studies freshman would get F for that. Regardless of 5th amendment issues... how could anyone pay for that is beyond me - that school is wasting taxpayers money.

tss201473• 13 years ago

He had two obligations, his moral obligations to his students and his obligation as a school system employee, which were in conflict. He choose his moral obligation to his students, but in doing so violated his obligation as a school system employee. The school system did not ask him to perform anything illegal or definitively immoral. It is therefore correct for the school system to punish him for this violation.

PeterisP• 13 years ago

If the school system asked him to do something, anything that is in conflict with his moral obligations to students - as you claim - then it DID ask him to perform something immoral.

tss201473• 13 years ago

I should have been clearer. From his point of view he had a moral obligation to his students. I actually don't think he did.

The school system should be following a combination of legal code and the generally accepted morals of the community they represent. Notification was provided to parents. Parents could opt out and there was no general movement by parents to prevent the survey. The school therefore didn't ask him to do anything which is "definitively immoral".

People including myself have to make judgements like this at different times during their career. I have worked for companies which have asked me to perform actions which I personally have found against my moral code but which aren't illegal and may not be considered immoral by society as a whole. Sometimes I have done them and other times I have not. It has depended on how large of a violation of my own moral code I though it was. Anytime I have refused I have fully expected and received negative reactions from my employer. To actively interfere with the goals or requests of your employer and not expect a negative reaction is just idiotic.

leephillips2• 13 years ago

What obligations as a school system employee did he not fulfill?

tss201473• 13 years ago

According to the article there was a specific script to be followed when distributing the survey. By informing the students of their 5th amendment rights he deviated from this script. Beyond this it was obviously the intent of the school system for students to complete the survey fully and honestly. He knowingly took actions which he knew might lead students to not doing so.

Ihmahr• 13 years ago

This is what happens to good people.

mcallan833• 13 years ago

I work in Batavia and it was nice to see this make the front page of Hacker News.

Just wanted to point out that the hearing taking place tonight will probably be recorded by BATV (http://batv.us/) and available to stream later in the week. Once the recording is posted, I will update with a direct link.

mcallan833• 13 years ago

I am told the video of tonight's hearing will be put up on YouTube on Thursday at https://www.youtube.com/user/BATV1017. If I hear anything else, I will post here.

donjigweed• 13 years ago

The dude abides

dmourati• 13 years ago

All I could think of was Tron Carter: "I pleads the fizivth": http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/3vk26x/chappelle-s-...

patrickmay• 13 years ago

I'm rather surprised that not one student published a picture of the survey from a cell phone.

JoeKM• 13 years ago

The origins of this survey need to be audited and investigated. Some school districts are notoriously greedy and only care about their bottom-line: test scores. The higher scores, the more money (for the district and for their salaries). I'm sure they correlated drug habits with low test scores, and sought to extradite delinquents from their schools. Perhaps even a precursor to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

Teacher under fire for informing kids of their Fifth Amendment rights

Related Stories