[mlyle]

It's really hard, right?

Courts have held that schools have a lower threshold to justify a search, due to the need to maintain a safe environment that is conducive to learning.

Schools don't really want to be involved in the outside-school life of their students. But what happens on phones, etc, between students outside school hours absolutely affects the learning environment and how events at school should be interpreted.

[politician]

What about the things that happen between children outside their homes, like at a neighborhood park? Would that not meet the vague “standard” of affecting the learning environment at the school? What about what happens in the home? Do they have jurisdiction there too?

Maybe schools should mind their own business instead of becoming totalitarian states that use permissive precedents to dig into everyone’s business.

[mlyle]

> What about the things that happen between children outside their homes, like at a neighborhood park?

I absolutely think it's relevant whether student A punched student B in the face at the park yesterday, when they're dealing with a dispute where student A seems to have done something that's in a grey area to student B. "Playful" jostling that student B doesn't appreciate is very different with the context of the prior punch in the face.

Of course, the problem schools face is that objective facts about what's happened between students-- in or out of school-- are frequently not known.

> Maybe schools should mind their own business instead of becoming totalitarian states that use permissive precedents to dig into everyone’s business.

Someone1234 posed some good questions above. I don't have all the answers.

I endured nearly a decade of terrible bullying because it was literally no one's business, though. Would not recommend.

[politician]

> Of course, the problem schools face is that objective facts about what's happened between students-- in or out of school-- are frequently not known.

That's right, but the solution is not to empower schools to operate their own investigation departments so that they can enforce their own laws on our children through a governance system best described as a Medieval lordship. There must be limits on their authority.

For children in abusive home environments, schools ought to refer these cases to the State. For children involved in bullying relationships, schools ought to refer these cases to the State. There are more adequate checks and balances on the actions of State than within the unelected fiat systems of governance in public schools. State and local governments can direct the appropriate responses of social workers and law enforcement. There is no rationale for protecting violent bullies from the law by adjudicating their behavior within the nonstandard and arbitrary discipline systems of schools.

Schools are not law enforcement and have powerful incentives to act capriciously to keep production moving: as you shared - they didn't look out for you and they didn't stop your bully.

[mlyle]

> For children involved in bullying relationships, schools ought to refer these cases to the State.

The legal system is a really blunt tool to deal with things like this, and doesn't have the capacity to investigate problems like this either.

And we're pretty clearly not just talking about "violent" bullies, but often those with behavior that may be just barely on the side of legality. But not all legal behavior is (or should be) tolerated in a school community.

> There must be limits on their authority.

There are. The Fourth Amendment still applies, but courts have chosen a slightly more permissive standard for school administrators than police officers in view of in loco parentis and the needs of the school environment.

[politician]

> There are. The Fourth Amendment still applies, but courts have chosen a slightly more permissive standard for school administrators than police officers in view of in loco parentis and the needs of the school environment.

School officials can be representatives of the State in one moment and in loco parentis in the next. Operating as a chimera is not an appropriate or respectful way to deal with anyone, especially children. It's telling that the principal use case of in loco parentis is schools - maybe it's time for that to end universally as it ended in higher education.

[mlyle]

> It's telling that the principal use case of in loco parentis is schools - maybe it's time for that to end universally as it ended in higher education.

You're not really proposing anything in its stead, though, as far as workable systems of schooling.

Schools owe it to their charges to make it a safe place for students to be and learn: after all, they're legally compelled to be there and most parents do not have other options. I believe understanding the totality of circumstances facing kids, including things that didn't happen at school, to the best of their ability, is necessary to make this work.

I suspect you might have some views that the student should "tough it out" or "solve the problem themselves". Adolescents do not have workable ways to deal with pseudo-anonymous abuse crossing over into environments they can't escape. Even adults would suffer badly under these pressures. Yes, the legal system is an option but it's not very accessible to students and not well-suited to address these kinds of problems.

I'm a teacher at a small idyllic private school. (view don't represent employer's). We have the benefit of a mostly supportive parental community and selective admissions. Today's era for youth is a less violent and more understanding one than when I grew up. Even so, the pressures and abuses from 24/7 engagement with peers through social media are huge. It's not surprising the outcomes overall in our society are trending bad.