Batavia school board disciplines teacher after Fifth Amendment survey flap

I worry that sitting here and reading the articles which turn up in HN each day that I am getting a very particular impression about life in America. Between this and Kiera Wilmot I feel genuinely horrified.<p>Am I just seeing outliers here? Am I seeing frightening trend where children are needlessly criminalised (Kiera) or willfully (even if well intentioned) manipulated (my interpretation of this survey debacle)?<p>Other things I see include judges imprisoning children to increase revenues in private prison systems they have shares in.<p>How does it feel to actually live there?

"And students cannot incriminate themselves because, even if the district shared the information with police, police can't prosecute based on that, he said. They are only allowed to arrest students if they are harming other students, such as in a fight, or if the student is in possession of drugs or alcohol, Barshinger said."<p>I'm not saying that the school had anything but the best intentions, but It does give them a bit of a head start in targeting certain pupils should the school wish find a reason to remove a few bad apples.

Previous, very lively discussion on HN: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5777578" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5777578</a>

I find this whole deal very amusing because I suspect that most answers on this survey is wrong. I think we are not giving the students enough credit. I know that I was given surveys like this when in high school and I never answered them correctly, nor did any of my friends. Although the issues with punishing the teacher who is looking out for students is a problem, we should also be looking at why this survey was given in the first place. It seems like a complete waste of money and time by the school district.

I am on record in the earlier thread about this incident<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5777578" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5777578</a><p>saying that the first news report sounded like John Dryden is an unusually thoughtful social studies teacher, and that he was just relating the general concepts that he is hired to teach his students to a real-world situation facing the students. Even after reading the follow-up report submitted to open this thread, I'm not at all sure that Dryden was trying to undermine the survey process. Here's a key passage from the middle of the story submitted here:<p>"Dryden, a social studies teacher, told three of his classes that they had a Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate themselves when they took a social-emotional learning survey April 18. Some of the 34 questions asked students about their drug and alcohol use, as well as about their emotions. Their names were on the surveys, as it was intended to identify students who could use help, according to school district officials. Those whose answers raised red flags were called in to the school's student services workers, including social workers and counselors.<p>"Barshinger said there was no Fifth Amendment issue, for several reasons. Once students' names were on them, he said, they would have become student records and subject to student privacy laws. And students cannot incriminate themselves because, even if the district shared the information with police, police can't prosecute based on that, he said. They are only allowed to arrest students if they are harming other students, such as in a fight, or if the student is in possession of drugs or alcohol, Barshinger said.<p>"Board president Cathy Dremel, speaking on behalf of the board, said Dryden 'mischaracterized' the efforts of fellow teachers and administrators, some of who had worked on a committee for a year to find a survey instrument that would assess students' risky behavior.<p>"'The board will not support any employees giving students false impressions about those who come here every day' to work for their best interests, she said."<p>I am a lawyer by training. I don't actively practice law currently, but I stay alert to the law related to K-12 education, which was my motivation for studying law. In my experience, school district officials are often VERY BADLY advised on what the law is, and their default assumption is that they can do what they want, and hide what they are trying to do from parents who have the actual legal authority to guide their children's educations. I wouldn't take these kinds of statement from the district superintendent or from the school board president as the last word on what the legal consequences of the student survey might be.<p>I think another Hacker News participant said in the earlier thread that he lives in the district and would report on what he observed at the school board meeting about the survey. I'm not completely sure that this latest news story, which fills in more details that weren't reported in the first story, settles the issue of whether or not teacher Dryden's behavior was appropriate under the circumstances.

Source article actually points out that the teacher didn't do anything wrong in the warning, but that the warning was unnecessary and that the survey instrument was designed to protect students and give them a less risky way to get help than by talking to the police.<p>If the survey designers had communicated with the "administrators" of the survey (the teachers and aides), this whole flap could have been avoided.

Video of school board vote: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Is_Awj4Pvg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Is_Awj4Pvg</a>

What I was wondering is this: Are there any good tutorials teaching kids their basic rights of freedom/privacy?<p>With the right framing this could become really popular ("How to avoid your parents snooping on you"). I guess most kids have some phase of freedom-seeking and I would be happy to donate to a campaign encouraging this mindset even more.

Teachers should probably not dispense legal advice, but school admins should not take on the role of pop psychologists.<p>Were I a parent, I would expect the school system to secure my permission to ask my child questions of a personal nature. Which I probably would grant after a discussion with my child.

To me the act of disciplining the teacher makes the very case they're alleging that he portrayed. I.e., "the administration around here is kinda jumpy and will crack down on the slightest appearance of infraction--even if the right course of action is unclear or controversial."

Regarding privacy concerns:<p><a href="http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht10-28-02.html" rel="nofollow">http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht10-28-02...</a><p>In specific:<p>Sec. 1061 Student Privacy, Parental Access to Information, and Administration of Certain Physical Examinations to Minors.<p>The No Child Left Behind Act contains a major amendment to PPRA that gives parents more rights with regard to the surveying of minor students, the collection of information from students for marketing purposes, and certain non-emergency medical examinations. PPRA has been referred to as the "Hatch Amendment" and the "Grassley Amendment" after authors of amendments to the law. Now, school officials may hear the law referred to as the "Tiahrt Amendment" after Congressman Todd Tiahrt, who introduced the changes regarding surveys to the PPRA. The statute is found in 20 U.S.C. § 1232h and the regulations (not yet updated) are found in 34 CFR Part 98.<p>U.S. Department of Education Surveys<p>Subsection (a) of the legislation was not changed. Subsection (b) added an additional category (see bold below) and made minor changes to the existing seven categories. This provision applies to surveys funded in whole or part by any program administered by the U. S. Department of Education (ED). PPRA provides:<p>-that schools and contractors make instructional materials available for inspection by parents if those materials will be used in connection with an ED-funded survey, analysis, or evaluation in which their children participate; and<p>-that schools and contractors obtain prior written parental consent before minor students are required to participate in any ED-funded survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning:<p>1.political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the student's parent;<p>2.mental and psychological problems of the student or the student's family;<p>3.sex behavior or attitudes;<p>4.illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior;<p>5.critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;<p>6.legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers;<p>7.religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student's parent; or<p>8.income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).<p>Subsections a and b of PPRA generally apply when a survey is funded, at least in part, by any program administered by the Secretary of Education.

Many/most of the comments here reflect a general mistrust towards the administration, questioning motives or competence.<p>I've been the parent of a troubled kid. In that time, I worked closely with our school administration, who could not have been more helpful and smart.<p>If I lived in that school district, I would welcome efforts to address drug/alcohol/emotional issues. Maybe the survey wasn't perfectly done. But I don't see evidence that anyone was actually harmed by it.<p>In my experience working with sensitive information, educators have generally done the right thing, for the right reasons.