Scan your ID Card to enter your child's school

[rambone]

Detroit Public Schools are requiring all visitors -- including parents -- to scan their state-issued ID cards in order to enter the school and be issued a pass.

More statist conditioning, more institutionalization, more privacy invasion. Just another day in modern America.

Have we forgotten that Public Schools are a government entity? They don't have the right to card us any more than a cop on the street ought to. You, the tax payer, have the right to come and inspect the services that you pay for, and which you may potentially choose to institutionalize your kids in.

DPS I.D. system worries parents

 

[jeremy]

Huh...

I think I would be talking with a legal team about this...

 

[Keyser Soze]

Detroit Public Schools are requiring all visitors -- including parents -- to scan their state-issued ID cards in order to enter the school and be issued a pass.

More statist conditioning, more institutionalization, more privacy invasion. Just another day in modern America.

Have we forgotten that Public Schools are a government entity? They don't have the right to card us any more than a cop on the street ought to. You, the tax payer, have the right to come and inspect the services that you pay for, and which you may potentially choose to institutionalize your kids in.

DPS I.D. system worries parents

Very interesting article. Most schools in Indiana require you to sign in and sign out. I bet they will go to this.

 

[grimor]

I don't have a problem with adults being asked for ID's before they are allowed to enter a school. If you aren't a parent with a reason to be there, then you shouldn't be there. Don't need some 30 year old drug dealer walking around the school selling dope to kids at school.

 

[jeremy]

I don't have a problem with adults being asked for ID's before they are allowed to enter a school. If you aren't a parent with a reason to be there, then you shouldn't be there. Don't need some 30 year old drug dealer walking around the school selling dope to kids at school.

If I am not allowed access I want a refund on the fees I am charged to support the school...

 

[WWIIIDefender]

They are going to start making you scan your ID for everything. Pretty soon you will have to scan your ID to purchase gas, thats the only way they are going to get people to beg for the implantible chip. Sheeple will be like this is rediculous just implant me already.

 

[public servant]

If I am not allowed access I want a refund on the fees I am charged to support the school...

If you don't have kids or you home school...you deserve a refund.

Schools should be paid for by a user fee.

But back to the OP. Anyone paying for the facility should have access. However the system should be allowed to know how is coming and going. I think all parents deserve to have some form of reassurance that their kids are at least semi-safe while there (although deep down we know they aren't). Most people cannot quit their jobs to spend all day at school.

I'd like for them to at least keep the predators out.

As a taxpayer, I don't have a problem with them checking for warrants. Take care of outstanding warrants and baby-daddy payments before entering.

Just my .

 

[level.eleven]

This thread riffs nicely on Fletch's predator thread the other day. The concepts everyone feared are now being institutionalized and backed by the force of government.

I am trying to gauge the reaction my father would have had after being told that he would have to submit to a background check before he chaperoned my 6th grade field trip to the Children's Museum.

 

[rambone]

A few thoughts on public schools

In my opinion, if you want your children to go to a segregated school, where they never encounter certain people or objects, then that is what private schools are for. Go to a Super-Max Grammar School with biometric scanners and "gun sniffing dogs" and bars on the windows. You and other like-minded parents can choose to enroll in as secure of a school as you can find. You can even find one that wants to be a gun-free zone voluntarily.

BUT - being a public school is just that -- PUBLIC. If you are allowed to be in public then I see no constitutional reason you can be banned from a public school. You can't force people to pay for stuff and then prevent them from being within 1000 feet of it, or from entering the premises.

Sending visitors on tours of the school with a chaperone or during specific "visitation hours" would be more acceptable than excluding people from the premises based on a legal history that they have paid their societal debt for.

Also: Objects that can be legally carried by law-abiding citizens elsewhere in public, also have no constitutional reason for being banned from a public school.

 

[loony1]

I don't have a problem with adults being asked for ID's before they are allowed to enter a school. If you aren't a parent with a reason to be there, then you shouldn't be there. Don't need some 30 year old drug dealer walking around the school selling dope to kids at school.

this

 

[Arthur Dent]

Detroit Public Schools are requiring all visitors -- including parents -- to scan their state-issued ID cards in order to enter the school and be issued a pass.

More statist conditioning, more institutionalization, more privacy invasion. Just another day in modern America.

Have we forgotten that Public Schools are a government entity? They don't have the right to card us any more than a cop on the street ought to. You, the tax payer, have the right to come and inspect the services that you pay for, and which you may potentially choose to institutionalize your kids in.

DPS I.D. system worries parents

You clearly know very little about Detroit schools. Low graduation rates. High violence rates. Etc. As much as I don't care for the fact they are doing that I fully understand why. It's also why I live in the 'burbs. Some Detroit students actually WANT to go to school to learn. They don't need the disruption caused by someone bringing weapons with them or someone with several warrents out for them.

Like I said, I don't like it, but I understand why.

 

[rambone]

You clearly know very little about Detroit schools. Low graduation rates. High violence rates. Etc. As much as I don't care for the fact they are doing that I fully understand why. It's also why I live in the 'burbs. Some Detroit students actually WANT to go to school to learn. They don't need the disruption caused by someone bringing weapons with them or someone with several warrents out for them.

Like I said, I don't like it, but I understand why.

I sympathize with kids who actually want to learn. The problem is that they are forced to be surrounded by delinquents who don't want to be there and do nothing but distract the teacher and take away from the learning time of others. All on the dime of the taxpayer.

School should be privatized and non-compulsory. Private owners can come up with private solutions to curb violence. Breaking the rules of your education contract will mean expulsion and forfeiture of tuition. Financial stake in the game would cause parents to put the fear back into kids about achievement in schools.

Detroit, or any other urban cesspool, can put all the silly rules in place that they want to "for security." In the end the education will still suck and they will be no safer in their gun-free zone. Guess what -- a strange adult who wants to shoot the place up won't be going to the front desk asking for a hall pass to begin with.

 

[moischmoe]

I don't have a problem with adults being asked for ID's before they are allowed to enter a school. If you aren't a parent with a reason to be there, then you shouldn't be there. Don't need some 30 year old drug dealer walking around the school selling dope to kids at school.

Yeah, like that would happen. He would probably get shot for trying to muscle in on some 5th graders turf.

 

[jsharmon7]

I sympathize with kids who actually want to learn. The problem is that they are forced to be surrounded by delinquents who don't want to be there and do nothing but distract the teacher and take away from the learning time of others. All on the dime of the taxpayer.

School should be privatized and non-compulsory. Private owners can come up with private solutions to curb violence. Breaking the rules of your education contract will mean expulsion and forfeiture of tuition. Financial stake in the game would cause parents to put the fear back into kids about achievement in schools.

Can you expand on this a little more, in case I'm oversimplifying it? The way I understand your stance is that children shouldn't be required to go to school and parents have to pay for their children to go if they so choose to send them. But why should Timmy not be afforded the same chance to succeed in life as Johnny because Timmy's parents couldn't afford school? Basically, Timmy's parents can't afford to send him to school and he never gets an education. It's not Timmy's fault for being born into poverty. Without an education, he's basically doomed to failure from the beginning. He could be a brilliant child but he's doomed. The parents could desperately want to send Timmy to school but have to put food on the table with that money instead.

You hit the nail on the head with the first statement you made though. We need to find a better way to handle the students who want to be at school and the ones who don't.

 

[rambone]

Can you expand on this a little more, in case I'm oversimplifying it? The way I understand your stance is that children shouldn't be required to go to school and parents have to pay for their children to go if they so choose to send them. But why should Timmy not be afforded the same chance to succeed in life as Johnny because Timmy's parents couldn't afford school? Basically, Timmy's parents can't afford to send him to school and he never gets an education. It's not Timmy's fault for being born into poverty. Without an education, he's basically doomed to failure from the beginning. He could be a brilliant child but he's doomed. The parents could desperately want to send Timmy to school but have to put food on the table with that money instead.

You hit the nail on the head with the first statement you made though. We need to find a better way to handle the students who want to be at school and the ones who don't.

Sure, I'd be glad to expand. I would strip the role of government down to absolute bare essentials. That means that Timmy and Johnny aren't getting free health care, free housing, free food, free daycare, OR free education. Public Schools are a core principle of socialism. Public Schools are one of the Ten Planks of Communism as detailed by Karl Marx.

Some of the big problems with public education are: (1) taxpayers are forced to pay for a program whether they have 0 kids or 10 kids, (2) people have developed a major sense of entitlement for everything after decades of socialist programs, (3) Government services are wasteful and inefficient, (4) Government uses public schools as indoctrination centers.

Basically under the libertarian model, schools would be a business. Parents wouldn't be taxed for schooling, so they have more money in their wallets. They can spend it on whatever school they choose. Or, teach your kids yourself.

Now, that doesn't mean that there won't be alternatives for poor kids. Churches, charities, volunteers, Non-Profit Organizations, parents, and foundations would evolve to be there for the truly disenfranchised children.

Oh, and school would be non-compulsory, i.e. optional. Forcing people to be a certain way is Fascism; even if it is forcing them to be educated, healthy, and responsible. Making it mandatory to buy an education is no better than Barack Obama forcing people to buy health insurance. We are all just used to being bossed around so we don't bleat too loudly about all this stuff.

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, hold on a minute, Rambone... I recognize I'm continuing the threadjack here a little, so my apologies in advance. I agree that forcing kids to go to public school is going too far. I think that an education is too important, and to expand on jsharmon's point, whether "Timmy"'s parents couldn't afford school for him or if they chose not to educate him at all (including failing to homeschool him), they not only doom him to illiteracy but also his children, very likely. I agree that people should be responsible for their own choices, but I disagree that they should be be held responsible for others' choices, even if those others happen to be their parents. (I base this on the fact that presently, parents who choose not to go to college themselves often have children who also do not until someone comes along and is that proverbial "first one in my family to go to college" and also on the fact that a child who is uneducated will not be able to homeschool his child either.)

I'd be willing to agree that there should be no law requiring attendance at a specific school or type of school, but I can't totally dismiss the idea that children should receive some form of education. Do note that I've not advocated a law to that effect, nor do I do so when I say I don't see a solution that ends up there without such a law. What I am doing is saying I'd like to see some solution that results in all kids being provided an education without the need for a law.

I see it as a parental responsibility to make the children of that parent (or couple) do things that the children might find distasteful but that the parent recognizes are for the child's own good and that in maturity, s/he will appreciate.

FWIW, level eleven, I can't speak to what your father would have done, but I know that if I had to be background-checked to chaperone my daughter's school trip to the ICM or anywhere else, if she would be going to wherever it was, she would not be going with her school. She would be going with me and/or her mother or she would not be going. I have nothing to hide, but I also have nothing to prove. If the school suspects me of something, the onus is on them to find whatever they need to to prove my guilt of it, not on me to volunteer to prove my innocence or to make it easier for them. If my kid goes there, they already know (at a minimum) my name and address. Let them go from there if they feel they must.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

2 words:

armed security. scanning ID is not going to prevent a gunman or drug dealer from getting into the school.

the school i went to was on lock "out" all day minus the 45 minutes before and 45 minutes after school let out.

If you as a visitor wanted to go in, you could only go in through one door, you pressed a button and the secretary looked at you on the security cam.

of course this didn't stop other kids from opening other doors from the inside and letting people in where there were no cameras.

Armed guards at every door, just like it should be at the airports. **** the tsa. do it how the israeli's do it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

OK, hold on a minute, Rambone... I recognize I'm continuing the threadjack here a little, so my apologies in advance. I agree that forcing kids to go to public school is going too far. I think that an education is too important, and to expand on jsharmon's point, whether "Timmy"'s parents couldn't afford school for him or if they chose not to educate him at all (including failing to homeschool him), they not only doom him to illiteracy but also his children, very likely. I agree that people should be responsible for their own choices, but I disagree that they should be be held responsible for others' choices, even if those others happen to be their parents. (I base this on the fact that presently, parents who choose not to go to college themselves often have children who also do not until someone comes along and is that proverbial "first one in my family to go to college" and also on the fact that a child who is uneducated will not be able to homeschool his child either.)

I'd be willing to agree that there should be no law requiring attendance at a specific school or type of school, but I can't totally dismiss the idea that children should receive some form of education. Do note that I've not advocated a law to that effect, nor do I do so when I say I don't see a solution that ends up there without such a law. What I am doing is saying I'd like to see some solution that results in all kids being provided an education without the need for a law.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill I agree with you, education is important. But I also see rambone's point of view. I want the best education for my children possible, but I don't think there is anyway I could afford to send them to MIT/Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Etc out of my pocket. I don't know about you, although knowing what you do for a living I could guess, but I don't think I could save up about 10k a year from birth to HS graduation to send them there. Should others be forced to pay for them to go there? Or if all that we can afford is Ivy Tech, is that what they should have? Same for k-12.

 

[rambone]

OK, hold on a minute, Rambone... I recognize I'm continuing the threadjack here a little, so my apologies in advance. I agree that forcing kids to go to public school is going too far. I think that an education is too important, and to expand on jsharmon's point, whether "Timmy"'s parents couldn't afford school for him or if they chose not to educate him at all (including failing to homeschool him), they not only doom him to illiteracy but also his children, very likely. I agree that people should be responsible for their own choices, but I disagree that they should be be held responsible for others' choices, even if those others happen to be their parents. (I base this on the fact that presently, parents who choose not to go to college themselves often have children who also do not until someone comes along and is that proverbial "first one in my family to go to college" and also on the fact that a child who is uneducated will not be able to homeschool his child either.)

I'd be willing to agree that there should be no law requiring attendance at a specific school or type of school, but I can't totally dismiss the idea that children should receive some form of education. Do note that I've not advocated a law to that effect, nor do I do so when I say I don't see a solution that ends up there without such a law. What I am doing is saying I'd like to see some solution that results in all kids being provided an education without the need for a law.

I see it as a parental responsibility to make the children of that parent (or couple) do things that the children might find distasteful but that the parent recognizes are for the child's own good and that in maturity, s/he will appreciate.

Bill, I think we are on the same page. I am not discouraging anyone from pursuing an education, but I don't like the legal obligation to do so. If we had a system resembling what I wrote about, I would sign up to teach math. I have an engineering background and have tutored quite a few people through college level courses. I would teach an entire class if I could. Of course, lacking a government permission slip bans me from doing so in our current system.

And while I'm on that subject; our current system is horrendous. There is no reason a kid shouldn't have achieved a working level of Algebra by the time they graduate high school. I went to a private school and took Algebra in 7th Grade. Yet most students are still struggling with it throughout college. And don't even get me started on the literacy levels of our latest graduates.