(cache) intheyear3oooがNo more PokemonGo during training...について記入したコメント

[–]InvaderChin 24ポイント25ポイント26ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Sir_fappington1 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Suq_Madiq_Beech 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Yevrah_JararThere are literally dozens of us! 84ポイント85ポイント86ポイント 4時間前 (17子コメント)

[+]Pawn315 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-21ポイント-20ポイント-19ポイント 3時間前 (16子コメント)

[–]Yevrah_JararThere are literally dozens of us! 22ポイント23ポイント24ポイント 3時間前 (12子コメント)

[+]howlatthebeast スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15ポイント-14ポイント-13ポイント 3時間前 (11子コメント)

[–]Apolloshot 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Yevrah_JararThere are literally dozens of us! 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 2時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]DatapawWolfWTAdopt Vulpix Babies 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]fluffyxsama 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]DanglyTwanger 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Dimplebean 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 2時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]ambethia 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

I think that's the difference between a good parent and a helicopter. Taking the device from the child prevents them from having the opportunity to make the choice to follow directions or not. Without this choice, it's difficult for them to learn to be responsible for their actions.

In this case, I agree with how /u/howlatthebeast handled it. The expectations were set, the child chose to go against, and faced consequences. If /u/howlatthebeast had opted to not back the teacher, what kind of message does that send to the child, what kind of example is set?

Also, the teacher didn't do the parents job. If it's against the school's policy for the kid to play a DS, it's the teachers job to enforce that. It's the parents job to reinforce the school's expectations for the child, which it sounds like, in this case, they did.

[–]typically_wrong 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Dimplebean 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]typically_wrong 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]InvaderChin -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]InvaderChin -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[+]Nitchiu2 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]InvaderChin 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]sokoteur 81ポイント82ポイント83ポイント 4時間前 (56子コメント)

[+][削除されました] 3時間前* (44子コメント)

[removed]

[–]gaffaguy 53ポイント54ポイント55ポイント 3時間前 (13子コメント)

[+][削除されました] 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[removed]

[–]ItsFunIfTheyRun 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]DMann420Team Mod Disco Party Planner 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Icreatedthisforyou スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11ポイント-10ポイント-9ポイント 3時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]gaffaguy 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 3時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]Icreatedthisforyou -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

Doesn't matter as a student he still has to follow the school rules.

Edit: Christ the children in this thread.

[http://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/education-law/good-vibrations-a-case-law-update-on-cell-phones-in-schools-9429/](Summary of a couple cases that actually went to court regarding Cell Phone Confiscation in Schools.) Or for those not willing to read that.

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District 2006:

Background, a students phone was confiscated, while the phone was confiscated the student received a text message pertaining to a drug deal.
Result in favor of the student.
Why "The student's 4th amendment (search and seizure amendment) were violated, noting that although the district did have the right to seize the phone under school policy. They didn't have the right to access the information on the phone. Because the school had no justification for a search (seeing the text message) it was deemed an unreasonable search.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Kock v. Adams 2010

Background: Student had their phone confiscated and held onto it for TWO WEEKS.
Result: School Won.
Why: "The district has broad discretion to direct the operation of the schools, and that the courts have no power to interfere with school district decisions unless there is a "clear abuse" of that discretion." The school policy stated that phones would be confiscated and returned at the end of two weeks.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Price v. New York City Board of Education 2008

NYC board of education panned the possession of cell phones. Parents argued phones are a vital communication tool and needed for student safety.
Result: Court refused to overturn the districts ban.
Why: The district had a rational basis for implementing the policy (schools are legally allowed to implement policy that prevent distractions in the class room), the district was within its power to make the decision and the courts had no authority to interfere.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY IF IT IS DEEMED DISRUPTIVE TO THE CLASS ENVIRONMENT.

There are cases in California as well, they say the same thing. Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it.

There are cases in Florida, guess what? Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it (this one has a pretty high profile case.

Texas? SAME SHIT.

TL:DR Schools do have a legal right to confiscate your phone, or other electronic if they have the policy implemented. They are not allowed to search the device. Not liking what I said is not going to change that what I said was accurate and well supported.

[–]gaffaguy 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Icreatedthisforyou -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]DavidCo23 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (3子コメント)

[+][削除されました] 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[removed]

[–]AnswerIsSpeedforceYOU CANT LOCK UP THE VALOR 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Lemixach -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]PikachuHat 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント 3時間前 (16子コメント)

[+]Icreatedthisforyou スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント 3時間前* (10子コメント)

New Zealand (and even then they are still allowed to take it for the full day).

Both the UK and the US what I said holds true.

Edit: Downvotes are not going to change the fact that his link is NZ and it is irrelevant to 99.99% of posters here. Edit: Christ the children in this thread.

[http://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/education-law/good-vibrations-a-case-law-update-on-cell-phones-in-schools-9429/](Summary of a couple cases that actually went to court regarding Cell Phone Confiscation in Schools.) Or for those not willing to read that.

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District 2006:

Background, a students phone was confiscated, while the phone was confiscated the student received a text message pertaining to a drug deal.
Result in favor of the student.
Why "The student's 4th amendment (search and seizure amendment) were violated, noting that although the district did have the right to seize the phone under school policy. They didn't have the right to access the information on the phone. Because the school had no justification for a search (seeing the text message) it was deemed an unreasonable search.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Kock v. Adams 2010

Background: Student had their phone confiscated and held onto it for TWO WEEKS.
Result: School Won.
Why: "The district has broad discretion to direct the operation of the schools, and that the courts have no power to interfere with school district decisions unless there is a "clear abuse" of that discretion." The school policy stated that phones would be confiscated and returned at the end of two weeks.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Price v. New York City Board of Education 2008

NYC board of education panned the possession of cell phones. Parents argued phones are a vital communication tool and needed for student safety.
Result: Court refused to overturn the districts ban.
Why: The district had a rational basis for implementing the policy (schools are legally allowed to implement policy that prevent distractions in the class room), the district was within its power to make the decision and the courts had no authority to interfere.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY IF IT IS DEEMED DISRUPTIVE TO THE CLASS ENVIRONMENT.

There are cases in California as well, they say the same thing. Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it.

There are cases in Florida, guess what? Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it (this one has a pretty high profile case.

Texas? SAME SHIT.

TL:DR Schools do have a legal right to confiscate your phone, or other electronic if they have the policy implemented. They are not allowed to search the device. Not liking what I said is not going to change that what I said was accurate and well supported.

[–]InvaderChin 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (9子コメント)

[+][削除されました] 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[removed]

[–]InvaderChin 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]sciencekidster -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント 2時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]InvaderChin -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント 2時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]sciencekidster 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]InvaderChin 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Icreatedthisforyou -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

Edit: Christ the children in this thread.

[http://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/education-law/good-vibrations-a-case-law-update-on-cell-phones-in-schools-9429/](Summary of a couple cases that actually went to court regarding Cell Phone Confiscation in Schools.) Or for those not willing to read that.

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District 2006:

Background, a students phone was confiscated, while the phone was confiscated the student received a text message pertaining to a drug deal.
Result in favor of the student.
Why "The student's 4th amendment (search and seizure amendment) were violated, noting that although the district did have the right to seize the phone under school policy. They didn't have the right to access the information on the phone. Because the school had no justification for a search (seeing the text message) it was deemed an unreasonable search.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Kock v. Adams 2010

Background: Student had their phone confiscated and held onto it for TWO WEEKS.
Result: School Won.
Why: "The district has broad discretion to direct the operation of the schools, and that the courts have no power to interfere with school district decisions unless there is a "clear abuse" of that discretion." The school policy stated that phones would be confiscated and returned at the end of two weeks.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Price v. New York City Board of Education 2008

NYC board of education panned the possession of cell phones. Parents argued phones are a vital communication tool and needed for student safety.
Result: Court refused to overturn the districts ban.
Why: The district had a rational basis for implementing the policy (schools are legally allowed to implement policy that prevent distractions in the class room), the district was within its power to make the decision and the courts had no authority to interfere.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY IF IT IS DEEMED DISRUPTIVE TO THE CLASS ENVIRONMENT.

There are cases in California as well, they say the same thing. Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it.

There are cases in Florida, guess what? Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it (this one has a pretty high profile case.

Texas? SAME SHIT.

TL:DR Schools do have a legal right to confiscate your phone, or other electronic if they have the policy implemented. They are not allowed to search the device. Not liking what I said is not going to change that what I said was accurate and well supported.

[–]AnswerIsSpeedforceYOU CANT LOCK UP THE VALOR 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Icreatedthisforyou スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 2時間前 (4子コメント)

Edit: Christ the children in this thread.

[http://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/education-law/good-vibrations-a-case-law-update-on-cell-phones-in-schools-9429/](Summary of a couple cases that actually went to court regarding Cell Phone Confiscation in Schools.) Or for those not willing to read that.

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District 2006:

Background, a students phone was confiscated, while the phone was confiscated the student received a text message pertaining to a drug deal.
Result in favor of the student.
Why "The student's 4th amendment (search and seizure amendment) were violated, noting that although the district did have the right to seize the phone under school policy. They didn't have the right to access the information on the phone. Because the school had no justification for a search (seeing the text message) it was deemed an unreasonable search.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Kock v. Adams 2010

Background: Student had their phone confiscated and held onto it for TWO WEEKS.
Result: School Won.
Why: "The district has broad discretion to direct the operation of the schools, and that the courts have no power to interfere with school district decisions unless there is a "clear abuse" of that discretion." The school policy stated that phones would be confiscated and returned at the end of two weeks.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Price v. New York City Board of Education 2008

NYC board of education panned the possession of cell phones. Parents argued phones are a vital communication tool and needed for student safety.
Result: Court refused to overturn the districts ban.
Why: The district had a rational basis for implementing the policy (schools are legally allowed to implement policy that prevent distractions in the class room), the district was within its power to make the decision and the courts had no authority to interfere.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY IF IT IS DEEMED DISRUPTIVE TO THE CLASS ENVIRONMENT.

There are cases in California as well, they say the same thing. Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it.

There are cases in Florida, guess what? Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it (this one has a pretty high profile case.

Texas? SAME SHIT.

TL:DR Schools do have a legal right to confiscate your phone, or other electronic if they have the policy implemented. They are not allowed to search the device. Not liking what I said is not going to change that what I said was accurate and well supported.

[–]PikachuHat 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Icreatedthisforyou -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]PikachuHat 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]AnswerIsSpeedforceYOU CANT LOCK UP THE VALOR 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]sokoteur 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Icreatedthisforyou -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]sokoteur 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ChelWizard 26ポイント27ポイント28ポイント 3時間前 (2子コメント)

[+]Icreatedthisforyou スコアが基準値未満のコメント-17ポイント-16ポイント-15ポイント 3時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]ChelWizard 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]rawbface 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (3子コメント)

[+]Icreatedthisforyou スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

Edit: Christ the ~~children~~ parents in this thread.

[http://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/education-law/good-vibrations-a-case-law-update-on-cell-phones-in-schools-9429/](Summary of a couple cases that actually went to court regarding Cell Phone Confiscation in Schools.) Or for those not willing to read that.

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District 2006:

Background, a students phone was confiscated, while the phone was confiscated the student received a text message pertaining to a drug deal.
Result in favor of the student.
Why "The student's 4th amendment (search and seizure amendment) were violated, noting that although the district did have the right to seize the phone under school policy. They didn't have the right to access the information on the phone. Because the school had no justification for a search (seeing the text message) it was deemed an unreasonable search.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Kock v. Adams 2010

Background: Student had their phone confiscated and held onto it for TWO WEEKS.
Result: School Won.
Why: "The district has broad discretion to direct the operation of the schools, and that the courts have no power to interfere with school district decisions unless there is a "clear abuse" of that discretion." The school policy stated that phones would be confiscated and returned at the end of two weeks.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Price v. New York City Board of Education 2008

NYC board of education panned the possession of cell phones. Parents argued phones are a vital communication tool and needed for student safety.
Result: Court refused to overturn the districts ban.
Why: The district had a rational basis for implementing the policy (schools are legally allowed to implement policy that prevent distractions in the class room), the district was within its power to make the decision and the courts had no authority to interfere.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY IF IT IS DEEMED DISRUPTIVE TO THE CLASS ENVIRONMENT.

There are cases in California as well, they say the same thing. Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it.

There are cases in Florida, guess what? Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it (this one has a pretty high profile case.

Texas? SAME SHIT.

TL:DR Schools do have a legal right to confiscate your phone, or other electronic if they have the policy implemented. They are not allowed to search the device. Not liking what I said is not going to change that what I said was accurate and well supported.

[–]rawbface 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]AnswerIsSpeedforceYOU CANT LOCK UP THE VALOR 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Apolloshot 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前 (1子コメント)

[+]Icreatedthisforyou スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

Edit: Christ the children in this thread.

[http://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/education-law/good-vibrations-a-case-law-update-on-cell-phones-in-schools-9429/](Summary of a couple cases that actually went to court regarding Cell Phone Confiscation in Schools.) Or for those not willing to read that.

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District 2006:

Background, a students phone was confiscated, while the phone was confiscated the student received a text message pertaining to a drug deal.
Result in favor of the student.
Why "The student's 4th amendment (search and seizure amendment) were violated, noting that although the district did have the right to seize the phone under school policy. They didn't have the right to access the information on the phone. Because the school had no justification for a search (seeing the text message) it was deemed an unreasonable search.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Kock v. Adams 2010

Background: Student had their phone confiscated and held onto it for TWO WEEKS.
Result: School Won.
Why: "The district has broad discretion to direct the operation of the schools, and that the courts have no power to interfere with school district decisions unless there is a "clear abuse" of that discretion." The school policy stated that phones would be confiscated and returned at the end of two weeks.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT SEARCH IT.

Price v. New York City Board of Education 2008

NYC board of education panned the possession of cell phones. Parents argued phones are a vital communication tool and needed for student safety.
Result: Court refused to overturn the districts ban.
Why: The district had a rational basis for implementing the policy (schools are legally allowed to implement policy that prevent distractions in the class room), the district was within its power to make the decision and the courts had no authority to interfere.
How this pertains to what I said: SCHOOLS CAN CONFISCATE PROPERTY IF IT IS DEEMED DISRUPTIVE TO THE CLASS ENVIRONMENT.

There are cases in California as well, they say the same thing. Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it.

There are cases in Florida, guess what? Schools can take and hold onto property they can't search it (this one has a pretty high profile case.

Texas? SAME SHIT.

TL:DR Schools do have a legal right to confiscate your phone, or other electronic if they have the policy implemented. They are not allowed to search the device. Not liking what I said is not going to change that what I said was accurate and well supported.

[–]liqu0rballsandwiches -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]SpiralOut2112 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-33ポイント-32ポイント-31ポイント 4時間前 (10子コメント)

[–]treerainsun 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 4時間前 (9子コメント)

[+]SpiralOut2112 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 4時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]thebuggalo 20ポイント21ポイント22ポイント 3時間前 (5子コメント)

[+]SpiralOut2112 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 3時間前 (4子コメント)

[+]lil-munster スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 3時間前 (3子コメント)

Sorry you got downvoted so much. I also grew up in a small town in the south. I went to a private school, and teachers could keep whatever you played with during class for as long as they wanted/until the end of the year. We weren't allowed ANY electronics at school, and Pokemon cards (as well as pogs, yo-yos, finger skateboards, trapper keepers, and wheeled backpacks) were banned. If you were caught with any of it outside your bag or during recess, it was taken away. Most parents told their kids they shouldn't have been breaking the rules. I only recall one (rich) new student's parent going in one day to complain/get the item back.

On really special occasions/holidays/parties, a teacher would sometimes use the moment to clean out her confiscation drawer of goodies and return items to their owners. :)

[–]rawbface 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[+]lil-munster スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]SpiralOut2112 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]tatostix スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 3時間前* (1子コメント)

[–]thedersy1 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]azikrogar 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 4時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]meriweather2 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント 3時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]ytismylife 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]silhouettegundam 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]InvaderChin 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]JerseysFinestFire and Blood 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ThatGamer707 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 17分前 (0子コメント)

[–]KazROFL 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 13分前 (0子コメント)

[+]Mujona_Akage スコアが基準値未満のコメント-26ポイント-25ポイント-24ポイント 5時間前 (19子コメント)

[–]motonaut 49ポイント50ポイント51ポイント 5時間前 (14子コメント)

[+]XenoRat スコアが基準値未満のコメント-14ポイント-13ポイント-12ポイント 4時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Yohni 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 4時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]XenoRat -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

That's the thing though, by the time I started this work I'd probably forgotten the necessary math anyway and had to re-learn it.

It's a great idea in theory, but the current school system doesn't accomplish it at all, nor does it do much good with teaching life skills like doing taxes, writing a resume(we had 1 class session about this in 4 years. A single 1-hour session), and many schools are cutting or defunding their home-ec, drivers-ed, and other non-sport electives to give more class time to the subjects that get standardized testing(because the results of those tests determine the schools' future funding).

Rather than forcing bored kids to sit through advanced algebra they'll either never use or get a re-taught in college anyway, that time could be spent teaching real life skills while still accomplishing the primary goal of keeping teens from flooding the job market.

If we as a society were serious about kids learning that BS we wouldn't give them 3 months off every summer to forget all of it, forcing teachers to spend nearly the entire first quarter of the new school year in review of the previous years' material.

[+]Mujona_Akage スコアが基準値未満のコメント-18ポイント-17ポイント-16ポイント 5時間前 (10子コメント)

[–]ScubaSte7eFire Nation 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 5時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]Mujona_Akage 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 4時間前 (6子コメント)

[+]timmy12688 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 4時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]StoicThePariah 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]timmy12688 -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]StoicThePariah -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]ScubaSte7eFire Nation 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]miklasbk 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Mujona_Akage -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]intheyear3ooo 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 5時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]LionOhDay 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]eatmyplis スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ytismylife 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Potato_Allah -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]dudeware -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 25分前 (0子コメント)

I remember getting caught texting in class on a Friday. My teacher thought it would be a great idea to confiscate it for the weekend. After school I broke into her class and stole it back. She was very surprised come Monday morning when she thought she lost my cellphone. I owned up to taking it but not after letting her squirm for a couple minutes thinking about how she was gonna explain that to the principle and my parents.

Of course she was pissed off but if I had told my parents instead of just taking it she would of been in some deep shit from them. I deserved getting my phone confiscated but definitely not for the entire weekend. She understood what could of went down and we came to an understanding that I wouldn't text in her class again. I definitely had no chill in junior high; I'm sure if I had came to her after school and apologized she would of given it back.

[–]JarnabyBones -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]thrassoss -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]AnswerIsSpeedforceYOU CANT LOCK UP THE VALOR 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]thrassoss -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 35分前 (0子コメント)

pokemongo

Welcome to /r/PokemonGO!

About

Don't want memes or screenshots?

Full Rules and FAQ

Affiliated Subreddits

Spoilers

Useful Links

Join us on Discord!

調停者