I have read on her before that we won’t get anything done complaining on this forum.  So, what can we do to get the school board to listen to the “other side” of the issue and state that we feel this decision is wrong?  Perhaps we should be calling the district and writing to the board members.  (I think their e-mail addresses are listed on the school district website.) The policy should hold this year, as the students and parents signed the document and were aware of the consequences.  If they think it is a silly policy, get together and change it for next year.  But in the meantime, I think we need to make our voices heard, like the coaches and parents did Wednesday night.  What do you guys think?

By the way, I saw the coverage again last night on Fox 43 and I applaud our superintendent for sticking to her policies.  Her statement made it clear that the lesser punishment was the board’s decision, not hers.  Bravo to Dr. Shank!

Wasted - 25 April 2008 10:36 AM

I have read on her before that we won’t get anything done complaining on this forum.  So, what can we do to get the school board to listen to the “other side” of the issue and state that we feel this decision is wrong?  Perhaps we should be calling the district and writing to the board members.  (I think their e-mail addresses are listed on the school district website.) The policy should hold this year, as the students and parents signed the document and were aware of the consequences.  If they think it is a silly policy, get together and change it for next year.  But in the meantime, I think we need to make our voices heard, like the coaches and parents did Wednesday night.  What do you guys think?

By the way, I saw the coverage again last night on Fox 43 and I applaud our superintendent for sticking to her policies.  Her statement made it clear that the lesser punishment was the board’s decision, not hers.  Bravo to Dr. Shank!

I agree - the board and Dr Shank have to be on the same page.  Its like one parent undermining the other.

First of all, my heart goes out to Val and her family.  God bless you.

Now - when I have a Christmas party and the over 21 adults are drinking wine and my daughter is sitting at the table where there happens to be a full glass of wine (not hers of course) and a photo is taken, then shared with others… am I supposed to worry about who sees that photo and fear that she will not graduate on stage if the wrong person sees it? 

The rule needs to be amended, plain and simple.  Ridiculous.  I guess the real lesson we are learning here is never to have your photo taken at a party where someone might be drinking (or even a restaurant that serves alcohol - like Ruby Tuesday) for fear of guilt by association.

Wasted - 25 April 2008 10:36 AM

I have read on her before that we won’t get anything done complaining on this forum.  So, what can we do to get the school board to listen to the “other side” of the issue and state that we feel this decision is wrong?  Perhaps we should be calling the district and writing to the board members.  (I think their e-mail addresses are listed on the school district website.) The policy should hold this year, as the students and parents signed the document and were aware of the consequences.  If they think it is a silly policy, get together and change it for next year.  But in the meantime, I think we need to make our voices heard, like the coaches and parents did Wednesday night.  What do you guys think?

By the way, I saw the coverage again last night on Fox 43 and I applaud our superintendent for sticking to her policies.  Her statement made it clear that the lesser punishment was the board’s decision, not hers.  Bravo to Dr. Shank!

Wasted,
Good idea to make our voices heard.  Excellent idea to contact board members.  They need to know how we feel.

We also applaud Dr. Shank.  Sorry to again see her work so hard and accomplish nothing.  The board definitely sent the wrong message.

I won’t comment on what the board should or shouldn’t have done.  I have no say in the matter.  BUT the policy as written is a piece of crap.  There is absolutely no burden of proof.  Pictures or heresay is all it takes.  Pictures aren’t reliable for lots of reasons, and heresay is just that.  All it takes is for a parent to be upset that her son/daughter isn’t getting playing time and they can rat out other athletes.  Sounds silly, but it can happen.  I totally agree that student athletes (as well as all students) should not be involved in drugs and alcohol.  But the policy has to make sense and be enforceable.  As written, it’s nonsense.  Each case needs to be considered individually and the administration needs to somehow find proof.  If a student is at a family function who has legal adults consuming alcohol—I mean come on already.  You simply cannot punish a student for that.

Policies such as this “zero-tolerance” policy are too common nowadays.  Rules like that are put into place for one reason and one reason only—to avoid from having to make tough decisions.

How many of you guys (gals) heard this story??? Kinda similar:

Kegger Party

stories like this and the one at KD I think just highlight that kids think its all just a big joke.  Authority is a joke.  Drinking is a joke.....just don’t get caught.  I realize the pictures may not have caught anyone red handed but we all know these kinds of parties are going on....some even with parents knowing or even supplying.  With the board backing down on this one - you know the kids are all going to be laughing about it.

The thing is, a code of conduct is just that.  It has no basis in law.  However, the school district is not required to provide extra curricular activities either.  As a participant in these activites that are provided by the school, you agree to be held to a higher standard than your peers.  If you want to take part, then you agree to this, and so do your parents.  Now, when a participant in an extracurricular activity is shown to be in violation of this higher standard, the school board has the right to limit that student’s participation in these activities.  There is absolutely no need for proof.  The mere association with drugs and alcohol is enough.  You can argue all you like about fair or unfair.  I dont believe that is the issue.  The issue here is that Dr. Shank, when presented evidence that these students violated the agreement, they were suitably punished.  They were held accountable for thier actions.  However, the students and thier parents decided that being held accountable in accordance with an agreement that they signed, wasnt fair, and as such they complained and whined to the school board.  The board’s decision in this matter is a shining example of why teenagers these days seem so out of touch with reality.  Simply complain in the right way, and the punishment is dropped.  The board just told these students and thier parents, along with each and every student that has signed that Code of Conduct that there are absolutely no reprecussions for violating the policy.  The students learned that they are not responsible for thier own actions. 

Again, I have to question the lesson being taught here.

JustPlainC - 25 April 2008 04:46 PM

Again, I have to question the lesson being taught here.

AGREED - and that lesson is being reinforced by the parents.

If I recall correctly, several football players were restricted from playing last fall do to a supposed alcohol related incident outside of school on the weekend.  Some players punished were just ‘there’ and not drinking.  I guess since they weren’t Srs. who were owed a great farewell year, or players on a better team like girls softball, that they were more easily punished without the media getting involved.  Without consistency, rules are pointless.

its okay, we all know the jocks will become the drunks, the heads and grits will be the town trash, and the preps will defend us all in court.  praise God for the AMerican way.  bottoms up and smoke em if you got em

pboin - 24 April 2008 10:23 PM

What I don’t understand is why the school would expect to control or monitor off-premise behavior in the first place.  However, once the code of conduct is signed, it’s fair to expect it to be upheld. 

I guess my major beef with this is the concept of school authority off-campus and off-hours.  Is there *any* limit to our desire to be controlled by government, locally or nationally?

No there is no limit to the reach of “big brother”. Every year the government controls our lives more and more. So they signed a contract dealing with extra curricular activities, what choice did they have? It’s not just SESD, this kind of thing has been happening all over. One girl picked up her sweater at a house that was having a party with alcohol. Her father waited in the car. Because she stepped foot in the house, she was punished just like the rest. This bull didn’t go on when I was in school many, many years ago so I don’t know how these contracts read. So what happens if your parents have a party or cookout and the adults are drinking alcohol? Are you suppose to leave your own property?

Alex - 25 April 2008 09:17 AM

...any association with drugs and alcohol is prohibited. Association can be interpreted as being present where drugs and/or alcohol are available. Students who violate these rules at any time (24 hours a day, 7 days a week), whether such conduct occurs on or off school property shall be subject to:

I am not a lawyer, judge or jury but take a look at the first two lines. That is very open to interpretation. Does it mean I can’t go anywhere there is alcohol? Well if that is the case, I better move to a convent because there is a good chance the parents have alcohol in the house. I better not work at Messina’s or even go there since there is alcohol present. Oops, can’t work at My Three Sons or OIP either since they are BYOB. Can’t work at or go to Ruby’s. Can’t go to the family reuinion since my family likes a beer every now and then.

I understand the need for a code of conduct. I understand enforcing it. The problem is, this one can go many ways and from the past history, it appears to be used selectively.

Oh yeah, better skip the convent since they use sacremental wine for communion in many of them.

In my opinion, someone is over reacting here.

Why bother to have any laws period, school policy, motor vehicle, criminal, ordinances, etc.? That’s what it sounds like to me after reading all the responses posted on this issue.

I applaud superintendent Tracey Shank for having the fortitude to defend the school policy pertaining to students. The board in my opinion failed the students.

I like someone else mentioned in a post to this issue read that the event occurred a couple of months ago. That left the appearance that whoever tipped off the school must have had a problem with one or more of the students. Perhaps they were mad they weren’t invited to the gathering. Who knows? The tipper needed to come forth at the time this was posted at a students MySpace. The tipper waiting months later to tip off the school must have been filled with a lot of bitterness to wait so long knowing what the school policy was.

I’m sure that many of the students involved in this situtation are good students. However policy is policy and what is the point of having a policy as someone else posted, if it is not going to be enforced.

In my opinion this is what is wrong with society today. Most Laws are made to uphold not break. The parents and students need to feel grateful that the board ruled the way they did.

This “not my Suzie or Johnny needs to stop.” Parents stepping up to the plate to defend their “Suzie or Johnny” when they have misbehaved or whatever needs to stop. In my opinion, I don’t think parents realize the harm that can be caused in the long run. Everyone needs to account for their actions. Instead we have parents accounting for the actions of the misbehavior of their children. Something is very wrong with this picture. Ranting and raving at the school superintendent and the school board over an issue that is a policy that parents and students agreed to and signed causes serious harm to the student in that it becomes extremely difficult for them to become a contributing member in society as an adult.

How sad, very sad.

That incident could have turned into a situation like this--

Police: Fight preceded man’s death
The body of a Susquehannock graduate was found early Friday morning.
By TED CZECH and MIKE HOOVER
Daily Record/Sunday News

Article Launched: 04/26/2008 02:46:24 AM EDT

Ryan Shiflett State police have arrested an 18-year-old Shrewsbury Township man in the death of his friend, whose body was found lying alongside a rural road early Friday morning.

Ryan R. Shiflett, of the 3700 block of Steltz Road was arrested Friday in the death of Eric Cook, 19, of Gerbrick Road Shrewsbury Township.

Shiflett and Cook were friends and had been drinking alcohol Thursday night into Friday morning, state police Trooper Karl Schmidhamer said.

The two men got into a fight between midnight and 1:30 a.m., Schmidhamer said.

“We have some ideas what the motive was, but we’re not going to release that at this time,” he said. “At this point, we only believe the two were involved.”

Schmidhamer said Friday night that Shiflett was

Eric Cook to be taken to Central Booking at the York County Judicial Center and charged with criminal homicide. Shiflett was arraigned and is in York County Prison without bail, a prison spokesman said this morning. (Click here for an interactive map of York County homicides.)
Schmidhamer said there were no weapons used in the fight. York County District Attorney Stan Rebert said today that the cause of death was asphyxiation. That could mean strangulation or suffocation, Rebert said.

Schmidhamer said that the fight happened near where the body was found, but that Shiflett moved the body. Schmidhamer would not say why Shiflett moved it.

A neighbor found Cook’s body around 4:30 a.m. along a berm of Steltz Road, or Route 851, in the same block as Shiflett’s home, Schmidhamer said. Police said from the beginning that they did not believe Cook had been hit by a car.

An autopsy conducted Friday afternoon at Lehigh Valley Hospital did not reveal Cook’s cause of death. Further investigation by a forensic pathologist, including a toxicology report, is needed, Schmidhamer said.

“The victim did suffer wounds consistent with a physical altercation,” he said.

After Cook’s body was found, troopers began investigating, interviewing neighbors and scouring the roadside for possible evidence. A 1-mile stretch of Steltz Road - from Ruhl Road to Selig Road - was closed for more than 12 hours as state police reconstruction and forensics teams combed for evidence.

Shiflett’s name came up during the investigation, and he was asked to come to the Loganville barracks about 7 a.m. Friday, Schmidhamer said.

Once there, police interviewed Shiflett, then arrested him, Schmidhamer said

“He is cooperating to some extent,” Schmidhamer said Friday night. However, he would not specify what Shiflett had said to investigators.

Cook was a 2007 graduate of Susquehannock High School.

Neighbors nervous

Several neighborhood residents said there were uneasy when they learned a body was found along Steltz Road and then when a horde of state police invaded the quiet, rural community.

“It’s scary. This doesn’t happen in this area. It’s a little shaky,” said Elaine Guiffrida, who lives nearby.

Guiffrida said she was awakened by the sound of sirens and watched throughout the day as police canvassed the area. She estimated that, at the height of the investigation, there were a dozen state police officers in the area.

“We are just not used to anything like this,” Guiffrida said.

“This is very surprising to all of us,” said Paul Ruth, who has lived in the neighborhood for eight years. “It is very peaceful around here. We are all very shocked, surprised, crazy, actually.”

Daily Record/Sunday News staff writer Rick Lee contributed to this report.

AT A GLANCE

The victim: The body of Eric Cook, 19, of Shrewsbury Township, was found lying alongside Steltz Road early Friday morning.

The accused: State police arrested Ryan Shiflett, 18, of Steltz Road, Friday. Police said the two men were friends who were drinking together at Shiflett’s house Thursday night when they got into a fight.

What’s next: Shiflett was to be taken to Central Booking and charged with criminal homicide, police said.

JH - 27 April 2008 12:13 AM

Why bother to have any laws period, school policy, motor vehicle, criminal, ordinances, etc.? That’s what it sounds like to me after reading all the responses posted on this issue.

The point is the school government shouldn’t have any say in what happens off school grounds. The point is kids being punished for things beyond their control. Did you read my last post? Do you think it’s fair for that girl to be punished? How would you like it if someone in a pile of cars is speeding. The cop doesn’t know which car it is so he pulls over everyone and gives them all a ticket.  So a bunch of kids go to a party, one person brings a beer. So everyone is suppose to be punished for the actions of one person?

...any association with drugs and alcohol is prohibited. Association can be interpreted as being present where drugs and/or alcohol are available. Students who violate these rules at any time (24 hours a day, 7 days a week), whether such conduct occurs on or off school property shall be subject to:

So this means that if I had any kids in school (which I don’t) and I cracked open a beer after a hards day work, then my kid would be subject to punishment. Heck, just having beer in my frig is enough to violate this clause. Yes extra curricular activities are a privilege. It’s also a privilege that my taxes pay for, so taxpayers should have some say in how they are restricted.

I’ve seen many of these threads over the past couple years that these kinds of rules have been enacted. Everyone falls into two camps. The first is ‘these are the rules, you signed a contract, don’t like it, tough’. The other camp is ‘the school administration has no business in what our kids are doing outside the classroom’. No one is going to change their mind it seems, but the big government/brother folks can be glad that their side is winning. There is hardly a day that goes by where the government isn’t finding some new way to tell us what we can and can not do.