Woodford County School Administrators being sued

[Plato]

she didn't know buying prescription drippings at school was against the rules.... Really???

 

She is lucky she wasn't expelled.

 

Idiot parent in my opinion.

 

- see Clyde's link -

Edited October 1, 2014 by Plato
I had posted the wrong link.

[Clyde]

Wrong link

 

 

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/09/30/3456301/woodford-parent-sues-high-school.html?sp=/99/322/&ihp=1

[LRCW]

Was the kid who sold the drug given the same punishment?

[Bluegrasscard]

She is (or was) senior class president. In a number of AP classes. Ran cross-country.

 

Her $5 drug deal was done in front of 20 or more people. A 'witness' turned her in to administration.

 

 

There are probably more kids using ADHD meds without prescriptions than kids doing alcohol and many do it more than once before an ATC test to control anxiety.

 

The over-reaction / zero-tolerance approach seems extraordinarily excessive. Either this girl made some enemies at the school in the administration or they were out to set a high-profile example it would seem.

[Plato]

Was the kid who sold the drug given the same punishment?

 

The one who sells is often expelled and charged with trafficking.

But I don't know in this case. Confidentiality laws prohibit the school officials from giving out that information to anyone other than the student and his/her parent(s)

[Plato]

She is (or was) senior class president. In a number of AP classes. Ran cross-country.

 

Her $5 drug deal was done in front of 20 or more people. A 'witness' turned her in to administration.

 

There are probably more kids using ADHD meds without prescriptions than kids doing alcohol and many do it more than once before an ATC test to control anxiety.

 

The over-reaction / zero-tolerance approach seems extraordinarily excessive. Either this girl made some enemies at the school in the administration or they were out to set a high-profile example it would seem.

 

I disagree. They were lenient by allowing this student to stay in school.

Zero tolerance would mean expulsion.

[Bluegrasscard]

I disagree. They were lenient by allowing this student to stay in school. Zero tolerance would mean expulsion.

 

 

 

They knew they were possibly destroying her opportunity for something relatively minor.

 

They also possibly altered documents according to suit.

[Plato]

"They" didn't buy prescription drugs at school. She did. It was HER choice that could possibly ruin her opportunities.

[capt278]

They knew they were possibly destroying her opportunity for something relatively minor.

 

They also possibly altered documents according to suit.

 

Buying drugs that you have no idea how they will affect you is not "relatively minor".

 

She is no different than any other student. Is she supposed to be treated differently because she was class president?

[jericho]

Good thing it was only this, if she had a pop tart that looked like a gun after she ate it she would be expelled.

[JokersWild24]

A question I'd like to see people answer before they go forward in this thread. How long has it been since everyone was in college?

 

This is Generation Rx. Jessie Spano and Saved By The Bell started addressing it, and it's the elephant in the room now. If you don't think kids are "academic doping", you are nuts.

 

Not trying to make excuses for this student, but I'll say that if you all think that this isn't something that probably happens daily, especially at more competitive private schools, then I'm going to go ahead and break it to you: you probably know someone who you think is a really good kid, successful in high school, going to a prestigious college, tons of extra curriculars, all that... and they've probably taken a prescription drug like the one here without a prescription because they thought and/or used it to get an edge, whether it be studying, before a big test, or to keep going during the grind of some longer days.

 

If you just read that and said never, all I can say to you is that maybe one day you'll find out something that changes your mind or surprises you. I'd say that the news of this probably surprises some people who knew her personally, but wouldn't surprise many students who those same adults think are just wholesome, well rounded kids.

[JokersWild24]

"If there was a concern about it being inappropriate or illegal on her part, she wouldn't have obtained it in front of 25 or 30 other students and a teacher," Simpson told the Herald-Leader. "The fact that it was in an open classroom reflects, at least in my judgment and her mind at the time, that there wasn't anything illegal at the time."

 

But during a third-period class, Forgy, the assistant principal, entered the classroom and, in front of other students, instructed K.C. to gather her belongings and accompany her to the principal's office. The suit says Forgy refused to inform K.C. why she was being detained, and "K.C. was unaware of the basis for her removal from class."

 

 

Maybe I'm naive, but without reading more, with the way it sounds, she might not have known how bad it actually was (i.e., possibly a felony). I'd think that a kid as smart as her would go to more lengths than to hide it in a way like the newspaper has it coming across. You'd think that if she'd known that, then she'd have probably taken more steps to conceal it.

 

Also, I would think that the courts might have a bit of an issue with "K.C.", who is seemingly a minor considering her identification as such, being interrogated and searched in a criminal matter without having a parent, guardian, or at least some type of representative who was an adult present given the appearance of the principal directing the the school security officer to search her, and how she then subsequently admitted things to them.

 

Not completely sure on the precedence in Kentucky, but I can see how that could come off as pretty coercive given the fact the she were a minor. Maybe if she were turning 18 the next day and it'd happened then, she'd be completely out of luck on that one, but I think there is some precedence for things strikingly similar to this ruled on by the Kentucky Supreme Court that were favorable to the accused.

 

Don't be shocked if this whole thing is thrown out given the motion for suppression that will come. Right or wrong, student's parents and attorney might know the law better than the assistant principal. I hear people who do police work say, "it's not my fault they didn't know the law... that's on them" all the time when it comes to things like giving consent for searches. The same works in reverse here though, and even if she was guilty as sin, you could probably draw a parallel and say, "it's not her fault that her (and her people) knew the law better than...".

 

Legal Clips » Kentucky Supreme Court rules student was entitled to Miranda warnings before questioning by assistant principal in the presence of school resource officer

[JokersWild24]

Maybe I'm nuts, but given the Kentucky Supreme Court's ruling, if I'm Woodford County's schools, I'm not even fighting this losing battle to the point it makes it to the papers, unless their goal is just to try and prove a point and make the girl out herself as suing them (but everyone in Woodford Co. probably knows anyway, so what does that really matter to her at this point?).

 

Don't believe me?, ask anyone who works in a legal field about the significance of no Miranda warnings.

 

In Texas, there is no "inevitable discovery" and I'm not sure how Kentucky law feels about things like that, nor do I care enough to look them up. I'm just saying, like it or not, this girl probably has a pretty good legal argument.

[Bengal Maniac]

Big difference in what schools can do and what police can do. I never heard you had to give "Miranda Rights" in my 20 year school administrative career. You do have to give due process, though. That is where , if the story is accurate from the parent and her attorney, there might be a problem. But we have only heard one side of this and the school officials cannot discuss it until a court appearance.

 

The punishment seems consistent with other cases. It makes no difference what other things she did for the school and community. She has to treated as others, unless there were some unusual circumstance. I fail to see what is unusual in this case. She seemed to make a choice to purchase a prescription drug. You just cannot do that in schools. 30 days in an alternative placement is not harsh in my eyes for this offense. We may never know what the seller got, but likely more severe. Let's not deflect what she did to what someone else did or the punishment they received.

[Bluegrasscard]

Buying drugs that you have no idea how they will affect you is not "relatively minor".

 

She is no different than any other student. Is she supposed to be treated differently because she was class president?

 

Kids do not know how ADHD stimulant-based drugs will affect them? Nowadays - they do.

 

One dose of water-soluble amphetamine-based Vyvanse will probably not do much more that a couple of cups strong coffees.

 

Non-prescription use of ADHD stimulants is rampant. Its not good. Its a problem. Kids seek it out before big tests. But to nail this girl and destroy her like this is not the way to address it.

 

Probably 1/4 or far more of the students in Woodford (and all schools) have had similar transactions or in most cases just good a pill or 2 from friend for free. It just seems the adminstrators went out of their way to make her an example instead of standing up (as is the case with most schools) to a growing problem in a more reasonable and less destructive manner.