Okay, this is a perfect example of why I despise the notion of "Private" Education - not the British backwards version, but the non-state run version that is widespread in the US (and much of Oz) and is ever increasing it's coverage as the middle classes expand in such modern economies.http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25459789-5001021,00.html
So this school can apparently enforce itself on the actions of a pupil who is outside of its direct sphere of influence?! How very concerning. Or is that just me? - am I somehow being bigoted or too harsh? After all, the school did get the pupil to sign a binding pledge on entry. I assume they also gained similar assurances from the parents.
But the issue I have is simple - education should be open to all and an institution should not have the right to act beyond its essential sphere of influence - that being education and the duty of care it has during such. After all, in many parts of the US, there aren't a wide range of schools to choose from. Many small towns have one - and it is often private, so what would happen in such circumstances? Furthermore, many areas are homogeneous in their beliefs and attitudes - so does that mean anyone dissenting (in their PRIVATE life) should be denied?
It's a question of access and as private schools continue to spread - the options will be limited. This is associated with the ongoing debates regarding creationism vs evolution in such schools. Curriculum should be centrally established by neutral agencies and so to should the rules regarding what a student can, or cannot, do on their private time.
Egads people. I can't believe such nonsense is still flourishing in this day. What social progress?! :)
I'd probably be much more ranty, if I wasn't laughing in quiet disbelief. I am truly staggered.