In what experts say could be a landmark decision, a Michigan school district has been ordered to pay $800,000 this week to a student who claimed the school did not do enough to protect him from years of bullying, some sexually tinged.

This week's jury verdict against Hudson Area Schools puts districts on notice that it's not enough to stop a student from bullying another. There needs to be a concerted effort to stop systemic bullying, too.

Essentially, the federal court ruling says schools can be held responsible for what students do, if there is a pattern of harassment or if they don't do enough to provide a safe environment.

"This is going to have implications across the nation," said Glenn Stutzky, a Michigan State University instructor and an expert on bullying.

The district's attorney, however, says the verdict puts schools in the tricky position of being held liable for student behavior.

The district plans to appeal.

"You're never going to completely stop kids from being mean to kids," said Timothy Mullins of Giamarco, Mullins and Horton of Troy.

It started with name-calling in middle school and escalated as Dane Patterson entered high school. Some of the harassment was bullying, such as being shoved into lockers.

Other harassment was decidedly sexual in nature. He was called sexual insults, his locker and notebook were defaced with similar names, and worse. He and his parents say they reported the abuse, and yet it continued. Finally, in 10th grade, he was taunted in a locker room by a naked student rubbing against him.

That was the last straw for the Patterson family. In 2005, they sued Hudson Area Schools under Title IX, the Equal Opportunity in Education Act, using the sexually tinged bullying as the basis for a sexual harassment lawsuit.

This week a jury in U.S. District Court told the school district to pay $800,000 in damages to Patterson, now 19. Anti-bullying proponents say the case will send a message to all school districts that they are responsible for sexual harassment and, by extension, bullying.

For the Pattersons, however, the verdict is much simpler. It's vindication.

"I can't even put into words the pain and suffering that I went through for years," Dane Patterson said. "It's something that I would not want anyone else to go through."

While Patterson said he feels vindicated and is trying to move forward, his mother can't help but look back on their ordeal.

"I don't know how you get back eight years," Dena Patterson said. She said her son is so emotionally damaged by his experiences, he can't even go away to college and live in a dorm with other students. "We said it was worth standing up. We don't want another student, another parent to endure what we have seen."

Hudson schools, like most school districts, has an anti-bullying policy, and it took action against individual students when the bully could be identified. What the district failed to do is stop the pattern of abuse, said Terry Heiss, attorney for Patterson. For example, the school could have done more anti-bullying education, instituted more monitors or other measures to stop the pattern.

But this case makes it clear that having a policy, or even punishing individual bullies is not enough to stop a school from being liable, said Stutzky.

School officials will now have to show they were not indifferent, and that they made sure there wasn't a broader pattern of harassment beyond the individual case that went unchecked.

"If you only deal with things on an isolated case, that doesn't meet the standard for an effective response," Stutzky said.

But Mullins said the verdict leaves schools in a difficult situation.

"It sounds simple, but when you've got 500 kids and you're supposed to predict what any two or three or one are going to do in advance, well good luck," Mullins said. "If somebody writes dirty names on a boy's locker and you can't identify who it is, you can't punish the whole school."

The Patterson case initially was dismissed by the lower court in Detroit. But in October, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision, saying the family had demonstrated that there was enough of a question of whether the district's response was adequate to go forward with the trial.

Patterson was called pig or sexual insults and pushed into lockers, among other types of harassment, "on a daily basis" in sixth grade. When they complained, the family was sometimes told, "Kids will be kids; it's middle school," according to the court papers.

The harassment escalated in seventh grade, according to the lawsuit. Dane Patterson wanted to quit school, and his grades slipped.

Eighth grade was better. He began going to a resource room, a kind of study hall, to be counseled, and the lawsuit says the resource room teacher was helping him cope with the problems.

But ninth grade meant a change to high school. The Pattersons wanted their child to continue working with the resource room teacher, who had been successful the previous year. But the school district said no. The bullying continued in 10th grade, culminating in the locker room incident.

"It's a terrible thing, and I'm hoping with this verdict that schools will have to enforce stricter sexual harrassment and bullying policies," Patterson said.
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201003060300/NEWS06/3060306&template=fullarticle

School administrators have to have the balls to punish them. Then again, I'm sure a bunch of bullshit laws have been passed that says you can't do this and you can't do that.

Just get TOUGH with them. Plain ans simple.

I am generally against assigning generalized law enforcement responsibility to schools without providing authority, funding, and training to do so in a sane way. If bullying happens, call the cops, don't call the school.

This idiot is part of the problem.


"It sounds simple, but when you've got 500 kids and you're supposed to predict what any two or three or one are going to do in advance, well good luck," Mullins said. "If somebody writes dirty names on a boy's locker and you can't identify who it is, you can't punish the whole school."


Bullying is a pattern. They don't have to watch all the kids. They know who is a bully, but they don't have the balls to do anything about it.

Then they always make some stupid example like...


"If somebody writes dirty names on a boy's locker and you can't identify who it is, you can't punish the whole school"


No shit, dumbass. If you can't prove who is doing it, than don't punish the entire school.

But they do know who is doing it and they let them run things.

Bunch of fuckin pussies.

I am generally against assigning generalized law enforcement responsibility to schools without providing authority, funding, and training to do so in a sane way. If bullying happens, call the cops, don't call the school.

But I'm not sure some of the intimidation that is done is against the law and the cops would prolly just pass it back to the school.

We always have to make stupid laws cuz common sense can't be used.

But I'm not sure some of the intimidation that is done is against the law and the cops would prolly just pass it back to the school.

We always have to make stupid laws cuz common sense can't be used.


Yeah, like get over the bullying or punch the kid in the face. Bullies are fine.

^ not sure I'm following.

Bullying isn't a big deal. Districts should worry about finding intelligent hard working people to be teachers in their schools, in classroom behavior, and proper curriculum. Not shit like kids getting picked on in the halls.

^ I disagree.

Damn, my 1st opportunity to use the :insensitive: and I failed.

That's understandable, you're the big government guy.

^ stupid.

It doesn't take big government. It takes giving authority to tell the bullies and their parents to stop it or they get booted.

Then they bully in the streets. But don't worry, the govt. has a solution to a problem as old as man.

If they are fuckheads, then take them out of society. Its that easy.

Well, checkmate. If you are willing to hand out life sentences to children who taunt, you win.

Gonna be expensive, but that's cool. We'll borrow from China.

The alternative to school administrations being pussies involves our tax dollars paying for legal expenses instead of teaching students. With this kind of ruling, both action and inaction will lead to lawsuits -- ugh.

As laws currenty exist, schools need to hand off such issues fast, not own them. Bullying in particular is increasingly happening beyond school grounds (e.g. cyberbullying) and shouldn't be owned by the schools when it's extends beyond the school. Physical abuse, the rubbing of nekkid parts after being imprisoned, fisticuffs, etc. is criminal behavior, and should be handled as such. Most people will respect the cop with the gun who can put you in juvie more than the principal putting a mark on your permanent record.

Well, checkmate. If you are willing to hand out life sentences to children who taunt, you win.

Gonna be expensive, but that's cool. We'll borrow from China.

LMAO!

You and they guy in the article should go get your exageration on together.

The alternative to school administrations being pussies involves our tax dollars paying for legal expenses instead of teaching students. With this kind of ruling, both action and inaction will lead to lawsuits -- ugh.

As laws currenty exist, schools need to hand off such issues fast, not own them. Bullying in particular is increasingly happening beyond school grounds (e.g. cyberbullying) and shouldn't be owned by the schools when it's extends beyond the school. Physical abuse, the rubbing of nekkid parts after being imprisoned, fisticuffs, etc. is criminal behavior, and should be handled as such. Most people will respect the cop with the gun who can put you in juvie more than the principal putting a mark on your permanent record.

But didn't you contradict yourself?

As long as the districts are going to be sued, then get rid of the bad guys/gals. I think an administrator has a much better chance of winning if they decide to remove the disruption.

LMAO!

You and they guy in the article should go get your exageration on together.

Sorry, did you mean kill them? "Take them out of society"? Where are you putting them?

I didn't know we were ready to write law here.

Let me get a draft and I'll get back to you.

Seriously, just start by taking them out of that school.

How does that solve the problem? They will magically stop bullying at a new school?

Step 1 is the gradual punishment that schools give out, including suspension. And make sure the parent/s are involved.

Step 2, send them to an alternative school.

If they can't hang there, off to juvie.

Type of things.

That's what they do now. Thanks.

^ Yea, thats what happened in that story Mxy posted. Thanks.

Actually, I think my error was in consistent tense. Lemme clean up the tense some:

Historically, the alternative to school administrations being pussies has involved our tax dollars paying for legal expenses instead of teaching students. With this kind of ruling, now both action and inaction will lead to lawsuits -- ugh.
If you're bleeding money out your asshole no matter what owing to legal bullshit, then doing the right thing doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, you still have a bleeding asshole. Permanently kicking out kids after one bullying abuse will just add more lawsuits to the mess.

The more I think about this ruling, the more I don't like it.

If you're bleeding money out your asshole no matter what owing to legal bullshit, then doing the right thing doesn't really matter.


I am the exact opposite. If its going to cost you either way, do the right thing and kick the bully out.

And hopefully I didn't post 'kicking out a kid after one bullying'

^ Yea, thats what happened in that story Mxy posted. Thanks.



If you took the time to research, it is exactly what they did.

Hannity doesn't research.

Ok, what'd I miss?

Was it in that story or do I need to goog something?

Either way, the administrators need to nut up and take care of these bullies sooner.

How could they have removed him if they had been bullying, for what sounded like, a few years?

I am the exact opposite. If its going to cost you either way, do the right thing and kick the bully out.
And the kids lose teachers and elective classes paying for lawyers and settlements. Swell.


And hopefully I didn't post 'kicking out a kid after one bullying'
No, you didn't, but you had me thinking in that groove. Zero tolerance seems to be the only good way to limit legal exposure that complies with this newest interpretation, AFAICT.

And the kids lose teachers and elective classes paying for lawyers and settlements. Swell.


No, you didn't, but you had me thinking in that groove. Zero tolerance seems to be the only good way to limit legal exposure that complies with this newest interpretation, AFAICT.


But going back to your point about the districts have to pay either way, they'd 'lose teachers and elective classes paying for lawyers and settlements' if they don't get rid of the bullies too.

Didn't any of you go to school?

The answer is, teach the victims how to screw the bully's sisters and if they don't have them, then their mom's work just as well.

Basic coping skills 4tw.

Close the thread!

Quick personal story...

First day of 7th grade, at the end of gym class when we were all standing in the locker room wating for the bell to ring, 4 big ass dudes (had to have all been at least 16 lol) walked up to me and asked what size my shoes were. I said "my size". One guy said "no, those look like my size" and I said "no they're not, they're my size". Well next thing I know one has each of my arms, and the other two each go for my shoes. Not much I can do at that point. One of the gym teachers walks by and says "put him down". They did, and I never lost my shoes.

It's shit like that where faculty could do a much better job. Sure, they never came back to try and steal my shoes, but wasn't it obvious that was the case? Why didn't the teacher at least investigate? He never even stopped walking when he said it.


Another story (relates to putting bullies in their place argument)...

Same locker room, a group of white trash kids were hanging out. As I walked by one of them just turned around and slugged me in the gut. It didn't hurt anyway (never been susceptible to gut punches, and he was smaller than me), so I tackled him and wailed on him for a bit. Of course his friends tried to get involved because that's how pussies like that operate, but my friends were nearby to hold them off. I got up after a few punches, and walked away. Not one faculty member ever got involved. Nobody ever brought it up, it was like it never happened.


So I can see how some kids really feel left out in the cold by their teachers & faculty. There really isn't much done in a lot of schools. It's a fine line whether to bring legal authority to faculty, but I can agree with the court case to a point considering some of the shit I've seen.


I can also see how the schools somebody went to can severely alter their judgement here. I've gone to every type of school from prep schools to ghetto schools that were closed for a day because there were new bullet holes in the walls to redneck schools that are on their own special level. The redneck schools are probably the worst for bullying IMO, but it can be just as bad in the prep schools too.

Is that my longest post here? lol

Quick question: How many schools in the USA?

Cause my solution is for your government to hire me and a couple of my boys and we'll go visit every single fucking school and teach these fucking bullies what the real world is really all about.

Motherfuckers wanna pick on smaller/fatter/slower/dumber kids? No way. STFU and worry about your own education you wanna be tough guy.

6 words for kids that wanna play the bully.

You Daniel Benoit, I Chris Benoit

waits to see if anyone even reacts

But going back to your point about the districts have to pay either way, they'd 'lose teachers and elective classes paying for lawyers and settlements' if they don't get rid of the bullies too.
I agree that "damned if you do, damned if you don't" can make it easier to do the right thing -- until you lose your job, your school closes down or some such bullshit. Yeah, I may be exaggerating a bit. But, this ruling sets a bad precedent, hurts our schools, and pads the pockets of a lot of scumbags. It's nanny state bullshit.

My anecdotal stories will be short.

1) My bike was stolen by a school bully and taken off school grounds. I told my mom. She called the cops. I had my bike back that day.

2) My high school gym bully and I met just off school grounds for the big fight he wanted. He thought he was a martial arts master. I broke his wrist on my knee. Game over.

3) Three bullies overpowered me, pounded my face into the ground, forced me to eat dirt, on school grounds Friday after school with no one around. One by one, they vanished, never to be seen or heard from again. I was eventually called in for questioning, but they could never pin it on me. Heh. Shortly after, I switched schools for unrelated reasons and had a growth spurt that discouraged most bullies. But that's not nearly as fun a story, and what I wrote *is* literally true in a fashion.

There's something like 100,000 elementary and secondary (non-college) public schools in the U.S. About 30,000 more private schools. 55 million kids.

That's a lot of pool cues.

I agree that "damned if you do, damned if you don't" can make it easier to do the right thing -- until you lose your job, your school closes down or some such bullshit. Yeah, I may be exaggerating a bit. But, this ruling sets a bad precedent, hurts our schools, and pads the pockets of a lot of scumbags. It's nanny state bullshit.

My anecdotal stories will be short.

1) My bike was stolen by a school bully and taken off school grounds. I told my mom. She called the cops. I had my bike back that day.

2) My high school gym bully and I met just off school grounds for the big fight he wanted. He thought he was a martial arts master. I broke his wrist on my knee. Game over.

3) Three bullies overpowered me, pounded my face into the ground, forced me to eat dirt, on school grounds Friday after school with no one around. One by one, they vanished, never to be seen or heard from again. I was eventually called in for questioning, but they could never pin it on me. Heh. Shortly after, I switched schools for unrelated reasons and had a growth spurt that discouraged most bullies. But that's not nearly as fun a story, and what I wrote *is* literally true in a fashion.

And thus the moniker or something, "not to be fucked with" :)

Quick question: How many schools in the USA?

Cause my solution is for your government to hire me and a couple of my boys and we'll go visit every single fucking school and teach these fucking bullies what the real world is really all about.

Motherfuckers wanna pick on smaller/fatter/slower/dumber kids? No way. STFU and worry about your own education you wanna be tough guy.

6 words for kids that wanna play the bully.

You Daniel Benoit, I Chris Benoit

waits to see if anyone even reacts

^ exactly.

But our school districts are full of 'all we need to do is talk to the bullies" type of peeps. Or 'we just need to pay more attention to the bullies' type of peeps.

They won't get tough with them.

Is attending public school a right or a priviledge?

What?

Schools aren't run by hippies. Schools often have multiple no tolerance policies and suspend kids for doing the smallest shit all the time. Teachers ignore all students, let alone the bullies, and administrators ignore teachers let alone the students.

Is attending public school a right or a priviledge?

If its a right than it's more difficult to take away, right?

I think these froot loops out here passed a law that says kids have to go to school or the parents can get thrown in jail. Not that they'd ever do that, but suposablee they can.

Is attending public school a right or a priviledge?

It's a privilege because it can be taken away for terrible behavior (what that is I don't know because I'm not a school admin). If it was a right, you'd have access to it regardless of what you did (like the right to an attorney, etc).

The reason I ask the question is this, when parents are given a shot at a free education for their kids, if they fuck it up by being a poor parent, then what if they were to lose the priviledge and have to send their kids to private/reform school? Would that provide incentive for the parents to ensure that their kids fly straight?

Of course, it's not that simple. A lot of families wouldn't be able to afford private school, and then you've got more kids out running the streets instead of being in school, then we all have more problems.

It's unrealistic, but wouldn't it be great if public schools were actually valued as a priviledge instead of being taken for granted as an expectation?

^^ It's called juvie?

Man, some families don't have 2 parents and some parents work 2 jobs and some parents are on welfare and some people are just doing it tough, yo...

Then pay attention at school you stupid motherfucker so you can go to college, get a real fucking job and move your family up outta the shithole you currently call home.

Fuckers gotta be told, gotta be shown - you tease a kid - you get a beating. You smack a kid - you get a beating. You raise your fucking hand at another kid - you get a beating.

WTF happened to all them coaches that Hollywood has in the movies?

Why isn't Samuel visiting schools asking "What is your deepest fear"? and shit?

Kids need to be shown that there is authority and that THE authority is not to be fucked with.

The reason crime is rising and kids are all fucked up is because no parent has the time or energy to discipline their kids like back when I was growing up.

If I was late home and no one knew ahead of time I had to explain. If it happened again it was my ass.

Today? Kids go home from school to an empty house, break out the champagne glasses and the motherfucking condoms and put 2Pac on their iPods.

While I agree with the sentiment, discouraging a beating as being wrong by responding with a disciplinary beating of your own doesn't exactly reinforce the notion, IMO.

It starts with the kid's level of respect for the parents. If the kid respects and admires his parents, he's less likely to want to disappoint them by being a fuckup.

What?

Schools aren't run by hippies. Schools often have multiple no tolerance policies and suspend kids for doing the smallest shit all the time.
Yeah, but they have to let the thugs back in, or else they don't get the dollars associated with the student headcount.

From a beancounter perspective, you balance the cost of the thugs vs. the worth of the thugs and see if it makes economic sense. It's an ugly choice any way you look at it.

Schools are supposed to eliminate name calling among kids? Good luck with that.

^ Pretty typical exageration from you.

I love how Tahoe wants this to be so black and white, but won't lay down any absolutes.

I don't know what the laws are that the school districts have to follow...then again, I prolly wouldn't take the time to do it anyway. I did post the basics, but I guess thats not good enough.

IMO, the problem is that the principals and teachers let too much slide. That may be cuz the districts don't back them up.

They need to get tougher, plain and simple.

What if it cost more money? Cause it does.

I'd balance it by cutting a few of the PHD's in the district that think they're so fucking important.

Those are the people who handle the discipline Tahoe. The assistant principals. They've all already been let go.

There are toooooooooo many PHDs at the top of school districts sucking toooooo much money from the kids.

Yeah, so just to be clear, you want to stop all the bully prevention shit, because as I said in my first post in this thread, the $ isn't worth it....right?

It's fun watching people learn.

*disclaimer, my wife has 2 PHDs and works in public schools.

Dude, come on, its been so long since I've been in school that I don't know the fucking rules.

My point is to get tougher with the bullies. If you can suspend a kid for missing a class here and there or getting into a lil consensual fisticuffs at a friday night football game, you can suspend the kids that are intimidating the nerdy kids.

Is that really so fucking hard to understand?

*disclaimer, my wife doesn't.

The only thing new in this story is that someone won a settlement in court. All the particulars have been around as long as there have been groups of kids.

^ But like Mxy and me were discussing...if the schools are going to start having to pay settlements for letting the bullies continue to bully, then maybe they should stop the bullies from bullying before they get their asses sued.

edit...Mxy disagreed, but just sayin.

Getting "tough" works great as feel-good rhetoric. Translated into actual policy... it's a quagmire. Once you get beyond obvious actions like fighting or shoving someone in a locker, good luck policing every kiddie he-said she-said billy was being a big meanie to my precious little johnny dispute.

The only way to avoid an abyss of ass-covering insanity in the schools is for that asinine court decision to be overturned on appeal.

Dude, come on, its been so long since I've been in school that I don't know the fucking rules.

My point is to get tougher with the bullies. If you can suspend a kid for missing a class here and there or getting into a lil consensual fisticuffs at a friday night football game, you can suspend the kids that are intimidating the nerdy kids.

Is that really so fucking hard to understand?

Yes, you want to raise taxes to spend money on public schools. Loud and clear.

^ LMAO

Put the bourbon down.

Yes, you want to raise taxes to spend money on public schools. Loud and clear.

No. Taxes are evil. So is spending. Any problem can be solved by a combination of wishful thinking and toughness. Unfunded mandates are magic.

Here comes fag boy again.

^It's still like they take pride in being ignorant.

Bring back nuns and switches.

^ But like Mxy and me were discussing...if the schools are going to start having to pay settlements for letting the bullies continue to bully, then maybe they should stop the bullies from bullying before they get their asses sued.

edit...Mxy disagreed, but just sayin.
Actually, I half-agreed with you. Sure, schools can chase down bullies, but:

1) If they're getting dicked financially because of stupid bullying lawsuits, they have bigger problems than bullying. Bullying in schools is not some nationwide crisis AFAICT. Schools losing money due to unfunded mandates and stupid laws are, and this just adds more fuel to the fire.

2) Schools really should only be in the "stop bullying" business if they're given a funded and supported mandate to do so, and I see little evidence of that. As things stand currently, the "serious" bullies -- the sluggers, the thieves, the online fuckheads -- need to be punted to the cops, not handled inhouse.

*disclaimer, my wife has 2 PHDs and works in public schools.


She's just one level above lunchlady.

Shit, she wishes she was better than me.

"consensual fisticuffs"

I'm glad they didn't think of hiring wardens for recess (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/education/15recess.html?hp) when I was in school.


Broadway Elementary brought in Ms. Parker in January out of exasperation with students who, left to their own devices, used to run into one another, squabble over balls and jump-ropes or monopolize the blacktop while exiling their classmates to the sidelines. Since she started, disciplinary referrals at recess have dropped by three-quarters, to an average of three a week. And injuries are no longer a daily occurrence.

“Before, I was seeing nosebleeds, busted lips, and students being a danger to themselves and others,” said Alejandro Echevarria, the principal. “Now, Coach Brandi does miracles with 20 cones and three handballs.”

The school is one of a growing number across the country that are reining in recess to curb bullying and behavior problems, foster social skills and address concerns over obesity. They also hope to show children that there is good old-fashioned fun to be had without iPods and video games.

Playworks, a California-based nonprofit organization that hired Ms. Parker to run the recess program at Broadway Elementary, began a major expansion in 2008 with an $18 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It has placed recess coaches in 170 schools in low-income areas of nine cities, including Boston, Washington and Los Angeles, and of Silicon Valley.

9 Teenagers Accused of Bullying That Led to Suicide (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30bully.html?hp)


It is not clear what some students at South Hadley High School expected to achieve by subjecting a freshman to the relentless taunting described by a prosecutor and classmates.

Certainly not her suicide. And certainly not the multiple felony indictments announced on Monday against several students at the Massachusetts school.

The prosecutor brought charges Monday against nine teenagers, saying their taunting and physical threats were beyond the pale and led the freshman, Phoebe Prince, to hang herself from a stairwell in January.

The charges were an unusually sharp legal response to the problem of adolescent bullying, which is increasingly conducted in cyberspace as well as in the schoolyard and has drawn growing concern from parents, educators and lawmakers.

In the uproar around the suicides of Ms. Prince, 15, and an 11-year-old boy subjected to harassment in nearby Springfield last year, the Massachusetts legislature stepped up work on an anti-bullying law that is now near passage. The law would require school staff members to report suspected incidents and principals to investigate them. It would also demand that schools teach about the dangers of bullying. Forty-one other states have anti-bullying laws of varying strength.

Here's a couple quotes taken out of their context from your article because I want to make a different point than the person bringing up the charges against the schools:

"sent her threatening text messages, day after day"
"Some of the students plotted against Ms. Prince on the Internet, using social networking sites"

Bullying isn't just about what happens at school. Schools aren't legally or technically equipped to subpoena texting records, engage Facebook, deal with the predictable 1st Amendment issues, etc. At the time it was reported a couple months ago, the school specified that the abuse mostly was cyberbullying:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/01/24/teens_suicide_prompts_a_look_at_bullying/

and a bunch of follow-on articles suggest that's where the police's efforts were obviously focused (which is distinct from where they might have been less-obviously focused). And consider this bit:

"threw a canned drink at her as she walked home"

This reportedly happened outside of school grounds. There's only so much a school can be expected to do beyond school grounds. Dunno about Massachusetts, but in Michigan, the crossing guards for kids walking to/from school are funded, vetted, and trained by the police, not the schools.

I really don't want to see schools on the hook for activity that happens beyond school grounds. I really don't want to see untrained, undeputized schools have all the same powers that the police does for students and other individuals while on school grounds. Don't turn schools administrators into kiddie cops. Nothing about this tragic death does anything but reinforce this.

As an aside, I think I'd have been in love if an attractive girl with an honest-to-blarney Irish accent and background were in my freshman high school class. Sad, just sad.