<p>I'm reacting more to the stories of high school drunks getting their infractions covered up so they can go off to be drunks at la-di-da colleges. And, then the colleges wonder why they can't get control of their drunks.</p>
<p>There are so many great applicants who don't drink, why are we taking admissions spots from them and giving them to kids who were drinking in high school. Does anyone seriously think they aren't going to drink in college?</p>
<p>The private schools I know take infractions and college notifications VERY seriously. NO la-di-da-daing about it. It seems to me that it is the larger schools that don't have a system of documenting and communicating to colleges what the kids are doing. The public schools here do not care what a kid does outside of school short of a felony charge, and only if they hear about it. Not so with private schools. They tend to view the kids behavior as reflecting on their school regardless of when it occurs. Of course, these are wide labels and do not include all such schools, but I think there is a vast difference between a small private and a large public.</p>
<p>you should consult an attorney of course, but from what I know if the private school has spelled out their policy clearly and there was a violation, there may not be a lot you can do legally. However, the school may not want to be seen as the type of place that would slam the door on a kid with a drug problem and may cooperate in some kind of compromise to let her get her high school diploma there or elsewhere.</p>
<p>failing a drug test = expulsion? Holy god at our school they just send a letter home to your parents. None of the admins know.</p>
<p>I think that the law that prevents federal scholarship/loan money for drug violators is crazy. The only category of crime that punishment is applied to is for drug convictions. One can be a convicted child molester, murderer, rapist and still get federal funds for college. It doesn't make sense that drug violators are treated worse than are people in the categories that I mentioned. Someone who is caught with a marijuana joint or a few amphetamine pills is treated worse than a murderer.</p>
<p>I'm not saying this because I believe that drug use is fine. I don't. I just think that the punishment should fit the crime.</p>
<p>The law applies to CONVICTED drug violations. A failed drug test would not fall under that category. But, I do agree with you, Northstarmom, that it is strange that this category is highlighted in federal aid. This is something that a lot of kids and parents do not know, and should if they think that smoking a joint is a little thing.</p>
<p>interesteddad- Give it a rest. This is not the place for your big-bad-high-school-drinkers rant. You might be surprised how many of the top applicants DO drink in high school. Give this guy a break. He's fighting for his kid and asking for help.</p>
<p>interesteddad, I really do find it offending to just generalize and call people "drunks"</p>
<p>That's not to say that I drink, not to say that I don't, but I would revise that word choice because its EXTREMELY condescending and quite frankly ****es me off.</p>
<p>I didn't read this entire thread, but just a thought: Can she sit for a GED test? Also, I believe some schools (surprisingly) don't require a h.s. diploma for admission, I think this is true for even HYP, etc. Perhaps your D's u doesn't either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
School policy clearly mandated immediate suspension for the remainder of the semester for all of them. They were all suspended for a week.
[/quote]
Why wasn't this clear mandate followed? Why were they only suspended for a week? In what circumstance would a student actually be suspended for the rest of the semester? It seems that this (apparently) inconsistent mandate could cause a lot of problems.</p>
<p>The reason there are "policies" is to give guidance to a community of what is expected and acceptable. At the same time, policies provide an administrator a chance to look at cases on an individual basis and exercise judgment. "Policies" that lead to penalties, without examination or human discretion, don't make sense to me, which is why I despise "zero tolerance" policies for example. If "two strikes and you're out" didn't work, why would "one strike and you're out" work twice as well? These are the kinds of things a lawyer might present to an administrator.</p>
<p>The administrator has a chance to exercise judgment, case-by-case, which is why s/he's paid the big bucks and isn't just a big rule book sitting in a chair. That includes creating a plan whereby the student pays dearly in private to ensure a lesson is learned, at the same time the other students understand there were consequences paid. No reason the paid consequence has to be removal of college and scholarship; that's where the administrator can work with this thoughtfrul parent, while still at the h.s. level, to redirect the kid's focus and future. </p>
<p>Usually a good lawyer plans a meeting with a series of fall-back arguments in mind, starting with appealing to the administration for some wisdom, and only if necessary falling back upon "your policy is not random but punitive, violating HIPAA, we'll see you in court, blah de blah." I would never attempt this encounter with a private school administration without a lawyer, that['s for sure. </p>
<p>I must say, I'm wondering about the college scholarship, in light of the fact that the D attends a private school. If she loses the scholarship, is she also without financial ability to attend that college? Seems a bit much to want to hold onto everything. I surely hope the college admission stays in tact, but if it does so and the scholarship is removed, then I'd say (as a parent, this is private negotiation) that she lost that money, and therefore owes it back to the family through a summer job at home next summer. </p>
<p>I'd hope a lawyer moves the administration to carve out some pathway that lets her stay in position to attend college. There;s the summer inbetween to work with, and at worst the possibility of college entry under probation (maybe not such a bad thing). Privately, as a parent, I'd require her to work back the scholarship if it's lost. </p>
<p>Although it might not sound like it, I feel awful for your family at this moment but am trying to engage the issue seriously as you (OP) are already doing.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I have to agree about the use of the word random. It may not mean "random" students, but may mean targeted students tested "randomly" as in they will have no notice that they will be tested. </p>
<p>You need an experienced lawyer who has dealt with this situation, ideally with a student at this school.</p>
<p>Paying3tuitions (and I feel for you on THAT subject!) --</p>
<p>I appreciate the advice about having a lawyer engaged to negotiate with the school. Hadn't really thought of it that way - had been thinking of the lawyers as a way to challenge what we BELIEVED was a false positive. (sadly we're hearing contrary indications to that naive assumption, this weekend)</p>
<p>And regarding the college, yes, if the scholarships go, then so does the school. Elite school, big tuition, big scholarships. She wouldn't even come close to being able to earn that money.</p>
<p>She has turned down all other offers at other schools, some of which were quite nice, so if this event disrupts her matriculation at her chosen school, then she is in some sort of limbo until an alternative is identified, applied for, etc.</p>
<p>I'll need to focus Monday morning on identifying exactly what will be communicated to the college.</p>
<p>It sounds like the OP is headed down the right path. I agree with all the posters who mentioned the lawyer. I think parents have an obligation to ensure that they protect their child's public rights. Even though age may dictate that the kid is under the legal system an adult, they are really still children as far as I'm concerned. The OP did not suggest that there was a "public" interest in the infraction or whether his child was in a small town or an urban area, but it is also important to keep this issue as a "school" issue which it sounds like it currently is and a lawyer would certainly help with that aspect also. I can't imagine any parent who doesn't get emotional about a situation like this and a lawyer can help keep everything in perspective and act as a mediator between the parents and whomever is in the judgemental/decision making seat. Situations like these are hard on the parents, hard on siblings, hard for the one who did wrong. We've been there done that one time with alcohol and it was no fun. It's a real wake-up call for the kid. Parents can talk til they are blue in the face and unfortunately some kids just don't think it will happen "to them". One thing that I now drill into kids heads is that even once they are in college if they step one foot off college property there is no "protection" and what might "float" on the campus won't "float" with the community outside the confines of the college...guess we never stop worrying. Good luck to the OP and while things won't be the same as they were a week or so ago, hopefully a reasonable solution can be found.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really do find it offending to just generalize and call people "drunks"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the point. The reason that colleges have so many drunks is that they attach no social stigma to being a drunk.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Give this guy a break. He's fighting for his kid and asking for help.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And the "help" he is getting is nothing but suggestions to lawyer up and help the daughter avoid any consequences, such as losing her all-expenses paid la-di-da college privledge.</p>
<p>I'm throwing out an alternative thesis for his consideration -- that after being bagged for drinking at age 15 or 16 and now for some kind of serious drug infraction at age 18, maybe daddy bailing her out is not in the kid's best interest.</p>
<p>I don't know. I'm not there. Thank god I'm not the dad. My heart aches for him.</p>
<p>But, if he is dealing with an opiate pain-killer issue, it's no joking matter. At the very least, I think there should be serious consideration to a deferred enrollment gap year between fancy prep school and fancy college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll need to focus Monday morning on identifying exactly what will be communicated to the college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You may want to consider the option of deferred enrollment for a year due to an unspecified family situation. Most elite colleges have no problem with deferred enrollment and that would give you a year to work things out with your D and find out if the privledge of going to a $45,000 a year college even has any meaning to her. I think it does a big injustice to send a kid who couldn't care less. Better to wait until they appreciate the opportunity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As background, there was a minor drinking infraction her sophomore year.
[/quote]
No involvement with ETOH by at 15-16 y/o should be considered minor.</p>
<p>The Common Apps Final GC report ask this question Has the applicant ever been found responsible for a disciplinary action ..behavioral misconduct, that resulted in the applicants probation, suspension, removal, dismissal, or expulsion from your institution?</p>
<p>There is no way the GC can answer NO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No involvement with ETOH by at 15-16 y/o should be considered “minor”.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bingo. </p>
<p>I think the dad has to at least consider the possibility that she's been boozin' it up ever since. It's not like that would be uncommon.</p>
<p>OP - Responses by many thoughtful posters has convinced me that discussing this situation with a negotiation-oriented lawyer is an appropriate thing to do. The situation is emotional. The school is acting oddly. There's a lot of money involved. As a parent it's hard to be objective under such circumstances.</p>
<p>I believe this situation is likely to work itself out in a reasonable fashion. Might that occur without a legal partner? Sure. But what will your first thought be if on Monday morning you ask the Headmaster what will be put on your D's transcript and he says "The transcript will say that she was disciplined for underage drinking as a Sophomore and expelled for drug abuse as a Senior. It will furthermore say that she did not complete her Senior year classes, and that no diploma was awarded. It will also state that the school considered her case egregious, and contemplated referring it to the local authorities for prosecution." </p>
<p>I don't expect it to play out that way, but mitigating downside risk is the prudent thing to do. Again, my best wishes for a decent outcome.</p>