Suspension in boarding schools

[Catlady (Rita Prince]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The Healing Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
> | Carol, who fears that for most kids who break the rules and 
> | get suspended, suspension isn't much of a punishment
> 
> [Lee]:
> Couldn't agree more.  Of course, if the parents act like parents and
> take the computer and cell phone away and enact proper discipline, 
> then suspension could be a passable punnishment.  But assuming that
> the kids would have their TV, video games, etc., that's certainly no
> punishment.
> 
> Just my thoughts, being a most old-fashioned creature. <Grin>

When I was in high school, 'computer' meant IBM 360, the word 'cell phone' would have been meaningless -- the closest thing to a cell phone was a 'communicator' on Star Trek, and it didn't use a cell network. And most families only had one TV.

Suspension was not an unpleasant punishment even at that time. It's sad that simply not being at school is a pleasure, even if you have to spend the time doing homework.

I learned from one of my teachers that the reason for suspension is tbat the school got the per capita payment from the State of California for each student who was present, absent with permission, or suspended, but not for students who were absent without permission. So suspending them guaranteed that the school would get the payment, while detention (before or sometimes after school) did not prevent them from cutting class again.

In addition, a teacher has to be paid to supervise a roomful of students in detention to make sure they arrive on time, stay there, don't get rowdy, and don't leave early, so detention costs money.