Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
Your "apparently" is an assumption. It could very well be that the principle (or whoever) said something like, "yeah, we'll work something out." then never did. The only "apparently" is that apparently, the family thought it would be ok.
|
No, "apparently" refers to the fact that this was not a lone violation of the policy; that the student had reportedly (not 'apparently') accumulated previous cell phone-related infractions, and that the school had informed him that if it happened again, he would be suspended.
Regarding the speculation that an assistant principal said something like "Yeah, we'll work something out.", that isn't an agreement, by any stretch of the imagination. And it certainly isn't realistic to think that a school is going to give an attention-seeking 16-year-old a free pass to sit in class with his cellphone on receiving calls from whoever happened to dial him.
I'm curious to know how far you think this policy of governmental-we accommodation for families of servicemen should extend. Only to violations of cellphone use policy at school? Should children of servicemen also receive more leniency with tardies? Extra excused absences? More time to submit assignments? More classtime to complete exams? Extra bathroom breaks? Should the policy accommodations extend into university studies as well? (But only for public schools, not private ones.)
Should this policy of accommodation extend to other governmental-we entities? Should the children of servicemen receive leniency in terms of observing speed limits? Because, you know, they could be speeding home to receive a call from a parent stationed overseas.
How about college admissions? Should they get extra points on an admissions score because of deployment of a parent overseas?
How about sales tax? Should families of servicemen receive a card to allow them to pay lower sales tax rates at restaurants and retail establishments?
How much flexibility are we talking here?