<p>I said no to riding with a day student until daughter was a senior and then gave blanket permission.
She was allowed to go to New York City because her older sister lived there initially and both had lots of New York experience.
I was amazed as the boarding school years went by how much more relaxed I became with the travel permissions. When you see your children maturing and see the experiences they have, then you will be more comfortable with permitting additional travel options.</p>
<p>I said no to both. Travel to athletic events was exempt. If your kid is on the team (at least at Exeter) they will be traveling to events in school buses even if it means missing classes - no permission from parents is required. Kids are also not allowed to get in a car with anyone - including parents of students - without written permission. They can walk to any place in town or they can take the school shuttle to the mall and movies. That has been enough for us for now.</p>
<p>I would be against both as well.</p>
<p>Quite frankly, kids leaving campus “at will” in any signficant scale makes it difficult for schools to keep track of who is supposed to be on campus at any time which is one of their primary responsibilities.</p>
<p>Yes, kids are supposed to sign out when they leave, but when a kid does get into trouble off-campus, the parent is usually not aware of the pattern of off-campus excursions, as no reporting is done back to the parents. So the parents are out of the loop on their child’s behavior patterns. </p>
<p>Two years ago, we had a hockey arrangement whereby goaliegirl left campus every weekend during the fall to play 2.5 hours away and stay with a teammate’s family (also the coach and managers of the hockey team). I did not do a blanket release, but a weekly email to the school authorizing the departure. Not a big deal to handle as a parent.</p>
<p>Last year, goaliegirl spent several weekends with friends at their homes. Sometimes it was the parents picking up. Sometimes it was a local student who drove. Each time we emailed permission. We also did our homework as to what she would be doing on those weekends. Not difficult to do. We and the school know where she will be and we know what she will be doing with whom. Never a whiff of trouble from goaliegirl, although one of the girls whom she went home with during the year later got into some trouble on campus. However the weekend at the girls home was well supervised and uneventful.</p>
<p>We’ve never needed to deny goaliegirl permission for an off-campus excursion, but goaliegirl understands that she shouldn’t ask for permission to be in a questionable situation. She does her job correctly and we as parents do ours. It all works fine.</p>
<p>So why again would a parent want a blanket release?</p>
<p>Poll result: 
majority say yes to Q1, and say no to Q2. A few suggest no blanket approval on either and only process case by case.</p>
<p>Thanks everyone for you input. Very helpful!</p>
<p>Yes to #1 and #2, but only with specified students (for #2) and with the agreement that he lets us know when he plans to go to Greenfield (the “big city” near his school). My son is friends with several day students whose parents are employed by the school, and he only travels with them to their homes after the parents have communicated with eachother.</p>
<p>In DD’s sophomore year, “Can I go to a party at x/day student’s house” of course sent me to the phone to call the hosts; in 3 out of 5 cases my call was the first hint to the host parents that they were going to be hosts. Weren’t they surprised!</p>
<p>If your teen was living at home, would you make that obligatory call, to find out “what you could bring us to the to party?” The same goes for off campus events at boarding school.</p>
<p>Boarding school sometimes extend their “no drinking” rules off campus. A couple a years ago a large group of Senior boarders pieced together transportation to another boarder’s home for a weekend house party. Much drinking ensued - the school declined to award diploma to a sizable group</p>
<p>Teens can do really silly things, particularly in groups. Retaining the right to at least know where your kid is going, and the right to ask questions is not such a bad thing. Sometimes you need to play the heavy and say “no.” </p>
<p>And a stand by my statement: Freshman and Sophomores should not be recruited/pressured to attend gay events or engage in gay lifestyle. Support gay people, yes; aggressive recruitment of minors - no. Teachers sometimes have thier own agendas - you are still the parent.</p>
<p>toadstool - what’s with the homophobia? Please keep your gay comments to yourself or among your own family members. It’s inappropriate, ignorant and offensive, and you should be censored by the moderator if you continue.</p>
<p>Homophobia is not at issue. The issue is gay teachers and older students putting pressure on 13, 14 and 15 year old to engage in gay behavior. </p>
<p>Too young straight; too young gay.</p>
<p>Boarding schools have huge policies discouraging boys in girls dorms and sexual relations. But as soon as “gay” comes into the equation, such behavior becomes untouchable. BS administrators feel that their hands are tied in thier efforts to shield young students from aggressive elements, for they, has I have been above, will be labeled as homophobic.</p>
<p>Very young boarders should not be pressured to participate in gay events.</p>
<p>toadstool, how are the students “pressured” or “recruited” to “engage in gay behavior”? For an event like gay parade, would the teachers in question simply put out the annoucements and encourage students to come and participate like any teacher would do for any event for which he/she is campaigning for? Or would they take more “aggressive” actions, if so like what? When you say “gay behavior”, what else is implied?</p>
<p>by “engaging in gay behavior”, do you mean to say thaat they encourage students to become gay? Because that’s physically impossible.</p>
<p>big red
d told me some of things that go on at straight prom too.</p>
<p>One of the things you have to do is trust your kid if you are letting them go away. we did 1 and not 2 - but I don’t let them drive with new drivers here either</p>
<p>Those of us who live in the land of GUG - gay until graduation - as practiced at Smith and Mt Holyoke, know that the pressure, particularly for those girls who don’t fit the sorority suzy mold, can be tremendous. And their graduates have moved on to the Prep school scene. Some are gracious, but some recruit aggressively and are politically untouchable.</p>
<p>Oh, brother…</p>
<p>The correct term is luggie</p>
<p>As a former Smithie I am offended! Smith is tolerant of all lifestyles, I happen to be straight and never did a prof. discuss lesbianism or encourage it to me in any way. There was plenty of heterosexual “dating” going on in the quad parties believe me!</p>
<p>what is “luggie”? Did Smith have the same reputation when you attended as it does now, PA-C? Just curious…my son does not know much about too many colleges, but he picked right up on the Smith thing. At his school it is looked upon as a feminist environment. I just always thought of it as a nice LAC.</p>
<p>D is going to Mt Holyoke in the fall.
She has an over nighter with the sports team she will be playing for and the girls told her “luggie” = lesbian until grad.
PA-C please dont take offence. D is getting all kinds of grief right now for attending an all girls school.
She was told no pressure is ever put on anyone to do anything they dont want to do.
BTW D is straight, has BF.</p>
<p>Toadstool , your blanket-statement stereotypical blanket homophobic slander is tiresome, hackneyed, and statistically incorrect, and casually tossing off your stereotypes as truth is also intellectually dishonest</p>
<p>Gay is here, gay is there, it doesn’t mean that gay is everywhere </p>
<p>Your GUG (sic) comment reminds me of the paroxysms that I saw administrators go through when they found Anarchy symbols on campus; they mistook an accurate respresentation of a small number of kids’ outlooks for a large social movement, and never did get the joke</p>
<p>keylyme and hockeymomofthree: yes, Smith did have that reputation then and now. However, it is a certain portion of the population and the campus houses tend to separate by interests. In the early 90s when I was there “green st” was more studious and had a larger gay population whereas “the quad” was more social, straight and wealthy , supposedly. I do remember being somewhat shocked when I once saw two girls kissing in the hall of my dorm- I had grown up in a very sheltered suburb and it was quite a sight for me! However, that was unusual- most girls where quite private about their “activities”. </p>
<p>Also, a school being looked upon as a feminist environment in my mind is a good thing. That does not equal rampant recruiting of lesbians. I wish the majority of the population could see that those are two different things. I consider myself feminist but am married with two kids. </p>
<p>I too received lots of flack for attending a “woman’s college” as it’s called at Smith. I was accepted at Mt Holyoke too and it was a tough choice between the two colleges. Mt Holyoke was a very pretty campus! Good luck to your D!</p>
<p>KeiOLei
Your post of “Not everywhere” sounds as if it is a disease. </p>
<p>It is not. A substantial number of the population have sexual preferences perhaps different from yours and people are everywhere. Even Vice President’s kids. Maybe true that they (as other social groups) “hang out” in areas where they are more accepted. As there are “aggressive” members of any group, I am sure that gays have them too.</p>
<p>There was someone on the board last year who ended up going to a right wing school as he was against being with gays, perhaps aboves should too.</p>
<p>Enough said on the subject.</p>