There will be other goody two shoes kids to befriend. If he ever goes somewhere and he is uncomfortable with what is going on, tell him to leave. And yes, you can be strict about his off-campus privileges.
@panpacific There is and should be IMO a difference between HS and college aged students. The BSs I am aware of treat marijuana use the same as drinking, not more harshly. Not only would more lenient treatment become a likely slippery slope in managing student behavior, but since the school’s have legal responsibility to ensure student safety, I can’t imagine things getting more lenient from a litigation risk standpoint from the school’s perspective. It’s obvious that teen extermination with alcohol and drugs is going on at a pretty decent rate as it is. Without the threat of punishment including college notification, how would that be reined in? I know it sucks but what is the alternative?
@doschicos I suppose what I’d like to see is that the school does not try to know or go after the students that had a drink or smoked a little pot over the weekend when they were off campus, as long as they are not high when they are back on campus or have indications that they are developing an addition. Not sure if this is feasible. Of course even if it is, it cannot be stated as a published policy. That’s what I meant by “acknowledge without open acknowledgment”.
Our school used to talk about infractions as things that were against the law, things that were unsafe for ourselves and/or others, and things which damaged the community. It frames why, for example, smoking weed is a problem. And unlike some schools, a student with someone breaking the rules is considered guilty as well on the premise that if you can not persuade someone to stop, continuing to hang around is “condoning” the behavior. Not a one strike school and one with DC hearings that are meant to allow consideration by different members of the community.
I think, using the framework above, “acknowledging without open acknowledging” could break several of these, especially trust in the community. Choosing to enforce rules selectively is grossly unfair to those who are subject to enforcement. But peer pressure is greater when peers are doing something so keeping them from doing so (as much as possible ) really is important. I understand what you are suggesting, @panpacific , but see it as a slippery slope to a bad bottom!
Kids make mistakes. So do adults. But there are and should be consequences for those mistakes. Just because you pay to attend school doesn’t mean you get a pass for illegal behavior or behavior that violates the trust in a community. Other boarding school parents do not want to send their kids to a school that looks the other way with drug and alcohol use.
It is concerning when disciplinary policies don’t seem to be enforced even-handedly, or when drug offenses are treated with more seriousness than crimes against others.
Thanks for raising this issue and sharing your experience. With a great education under his belt, I’m sure he has a bright future.
It disturbs me that this student (OPs) is being penalized based on a confession he made. A dishonest or simply more worldly kid would have declined to admit to anything-and there would have been nothing that could have been done. Where we are talking about a minor (I assume), no one should have put him in a position where he could jeopardize his future without him having representation-parents or legal-whose interests were to protect his.
@psparent Your kid is still awesome. To have thought he would never do something like trying pot was just naive on your part. He did not do something horrific. He did something typical. I am a hard a**ed parent-strict and don’t allow my kids to do things which are illegal-I don’t provide alcohol to teens even if they are sleeping over and give me their keys-and I dont let my kids go on sleepover parties for the same reason. My point is that I am not on the other end of the spectrum as you are in terms of expectations. But…regardless of my expectations, regardless of threats, regardless of penalties on the line-they make their own choices, and to the parents who are sure their kids are the goody two shoes in a crowd, I promise most of you don’t know everything your child does, regardless of how “close” you think you are. We just need to make sure they make their choices in the safest situations possible and that they don’t go overboard.
This thread is starting to derail into if I were king for a day … I would be surprised if any school: BS, private day, or public, had a requirement that students could only be interrogated with parental permission. We’re talking about school disciplinary proceedings, not a criminal investigation. Now, if the police are involved, there may be a requirement to get parental permission. However, that restriction usually only applies after a minor is under arrest. Before an arrest, the police are generally free to question a minor and use any statements he or she makes against him.
@roethlisburger If the school takes it beyond their purview, in this case-notifying colleges which could have potentially devastating consequences such as in the OPs case-then the student should be protected. The BS could suspend or even dismiss the student-but for them to send notices out to colleges-that is stepping outside of their playground. Even if the school has stated policies, students still have the right to have their rights and best interests best represented.
@roethlisburger that isn’t true at all. Police can’t interrogate a minor without a guardian present before or after an arrest. The school can try but if the kid declines without speaking to a parent first they can’t continue.
“A dishonest or simply more worldly kid would have declined to admit to anything-and there would have been nothing that could have been done.”
At some schools, they have the option of requiring a drug test.
“If the school takes it beyond their purview, in this case-notifying colleges which could have potentially devastating consequences such as in the OPs case-then the student should be protected. The BS could suspend or even dismiss the student-but for them to send notices out to colleges-that is stepping outside of their playground.”
First off, I think “devastating consequences” is a bit hyperbolic. The student in question is still off to college, my guess still a pretty good one. The student may or may not have been rejected from some colleges because of this or it could have been something else in the application. One can never be certain. I personally know several students who were disciplined and suspended for drug/alcohol violations and who have gone on to top 25 colleges with sub 20% acceptance rates (and no hooks). I’ve known students who subsequently transferred to more prestigious colleges after proving themselves freshman year in college. I know students who have even been expelled from boarding school who have gone on colleges we’d all be thrilled to have our children attend. Going through the process is painful, stressful, and there are consequences but not insurmountable.
As mentioned here before, sending notices out to colleges is definitely kosher. Both students and parents sign off on agreeing to that policy when they choose to have their child associated with the school. That is one of the reasons why I appreciate the OP’s sharing of the story. Think hard if this is okay with your family and make sure the student understands the consequences. Keep repeating as the child ages. In most cases, notifications take the form of the student addressing it themselves in the college application. In the case of where a disciplinary action takes place post-application, then yes, notices are sent. I’d actually be curious to know if there is ANY boarding school that would not notify colleges of a disciplinary action related to drug/alcohol usage.
I am going to guess that colleges don’t care much about this kind of disciplinary report (and that it did not change a college decision -but we’ll never know.) They see that the student was an RA, which speaks to his character in the first place. They see it is a first offense. The school may also note that the student showed integrity by confessing because that may be in the report. They will see only one item in the disciplinary record, not a long “rap sheet”. And they will see it is for something that half their own student body is doing weekly.
They will also be seeing disciplinary reports for kids who were in trouble repeatedly. Their offenses may have included drug dealing, stealing, fighting, bullying, etc. Those, I would guess, would raise actual concern.
It is lousy when a good kid gets caught making a bad choice. But it happens. Colleges know the BS they cover and know about the rules. Is the fact that a student was at a party to which police were summoned for noise and found alcohol going to be a deal breaker?; Honestly doubt it, especially if the discipline report notes that the student was one of 50. (See above warning to day student parents!) Does the fact that the school does this act as a deterrent and encourage students to conduct themselves in a way which makes the local community welcome their students? Probably.
One of the things a BS education does is make kids responsible for their own behavior. 24/7. And even when kids bump up against the rules, they learn this. This is one of the things we as parents (and colleges ) value from the BS experience. Our school’s "condoning " rule is designed to give students a reason to walk away from situations that are potentially bad for them. That is a great life lesson. Not always easy, but easier than being saddled with consequences.
I have helped at accepted student days at BS and at every one of them, parents ask about what the school does to protect their kids from exposure to various activity and want assurances that it will not be tolerated. Nobody seems worried that their kids will be a "victim " of the remedies the school has to make itself “safe”. Until it happens, of course.
This has been an interesting and educational discussion. But I think the bottom line is that the OP’s son is going to college and has proven himself to be a young man of integrity. I think most of us would be satisfied with that as the outcome if one of our children made a similar mistake.
@roethlisburger you are changing your statement now. Being in custody is not the same as being under arrest. Yes, the police can ask questions of a kid casually but when and if the conversation turns custodial (meaning that a reasonable person would no longer believe they are free to leave) who can consent to further questioning is a state specific question. I was disagreeing with your previous claim that there was no requirement of parental involvement unless the child is under arrest, which is widely and generally false, but again will depend on state specific law.
@Korab1
Perhaps we can both agree: schools don’t need to notify parents, unless they get law enforcement involved or it’s a district specific policy, police don’t need to notify parents except in situations where a Miranda warning would be given, and even after a Miranda warning has been given, whether the minor can waive those rights without parental consent depends on state specific laws and case law.
