Am I overreacting?

[ciyates]

Let me start by saying I hate co-op drama. The co-op has a policy that states students are not to be outside unless supervised by an adult. We have repeatedly reminded people/students but to be honest everyone has been lax about it. It has gotten out of hand. So as the Director I came up with the following solution.

1st time verbal warning and sent back inside to find an adult.

2nd warning written notice

3rd time and each family that is outside will be fined 25 dollars. You will not be allowed to return to co-op (our co-op is weekly) until the fine is paid.

 

The board was in agreement and we made the announcement. There was a lot of grumbling by the students (mostly the teenage boys). We then heard the boys planned to have a walk out. There logic is that we can't really do anything because our co-op only has two more weeks. I chalked it up to talking smack in a group until I found out some of the parents are supporting it.

 

To me this is open defiance. It should not be tolerated and needs to be dealt with harshly.

 

Here is my proposal. To send out an email to all of the parents notifying them of the situation (without naming names) and state that if this happens said students will be asked to leave the property and will not be allowed to finish out the next few weeks or attend in the fall.

 

Am I overreacting? I don't like my authority challenged.:001_smile: I would like to resolve this issue peacefully and with everyone on the same page.

[Danestress]

Maybe that would work. I am not sure why the kids have free time to hang out at co-op. Do they have "free periods" or something? Perhaps an email feeling people out would be a better solution. Maybe the parents would agree to have someone outside during transitions/free time. Maybe they would agree that at a certain age, the kids can have that privilege. Maybe you could find a safe "gathering place" inside. I think people who have a voice respond better.

 

But the rules as written are the rules for now. If they need to be rewritten to give your young men and women more freedom, do that. If you can't do that, explain your reasoning.

 

I would not freak out on it and start suspending students - before I did that, I would get one parent volunteer to be available outside until you can work out an agreement between the parents and kids.

 

This week I toured a private local school. One thing that really impressed me was that all the kids have a "free period" at some point during the day. And they are actually free except they can't leave campus. There were kids in the band room (not being used for band) studying. There were small groups under trees studying (or maybe chatting). There were kids in the library. Our local high school feels like "lock down" all the time, and I was impressed that these teens were given a pretty broad freedom and appeared to be using it wisely.

[Tutor]

It sounds reasonable to me.

 

What are the chances these families would sign-up again next year? You could go about business as usual with registering everyone for next year (registration, payment, etc) but then not allow participation until this year's fines are paid. You could include this in any signed agreement for next year.

[EJCMom]

What is the reason for the rule? Is it insurance related or something like that?

[ciyates]

Our insurance requires that students are supervised at all times. We allow families to pick and choose the classes they want so it is possible to have free periods. All the student have to do is ask someone to go outside with them while they play basketball or hang out in the gym area. We tried the volunteer sign up sheet but could not get anyone to do it. We have a problem with moms socializing instead of watching their students. We also have large families so mom maybe in the nursery with the little ones while the older ones are unsupervised.

 

I am trying to error on the side of grace. I don't want to cause a rift but they just cannot be outside unsupervised.

[kalanamak]

What does the rest of the board say about the situation?

[EJCMom]

Our insurance requires that students are supervised at all times. We allow families to pick and choose the classes they want so it is possible to have free periods. All the student have to do is ask someone to go outside with them while they play basketball or hang out in the gym area. We tried the volunteer sign up sheet but could not get anyone to do it. We have a problem with moms socializing instead of watching their students. We also have large families so mom maybe in the nursery with the little ones while the older ones are unsupervised.

 

I am trying to error on the side of grace. I don't want to cause a rift but they just cannot be outside unsupervised.

 

In that case, you're not overreacting at all. I might reiterate that the reason for the rule has to do with the insurance and that your hands are tied. I might also gently suggest that the parents who are supportive of the walkout might express their support in a more practical way and volunteer to supervise the kids. I don't know how I would word that without snark. :lol: You could also just assign someone to be the outside supervisor. Is everyone required to volunteer in some capacity? You could make that one of the assigned positions, that way there is always someone whose job it would be to supervise the kids outside.

[Barb_]

There was a lot of grumbling by the students (mostly the teenage boys). We then heard the boys planned to have a walk out. There logic is that we can't really do anything because our co-op only has two more weeks. I chalked it up to talking smack in a group until I found out some of the parents are supporting it.

 

...snip...

 

I would like to resolve this issue peacefully and with everyone on the same page.

 

 

My first question would be, "Why?" Why would parents be supporting this? Is there a power struggle simmering? Which brings me to my next point...there is no way this will be resolved peacefully if you go beyond the rules already in place.

 

If it were me, I would do exactly as the bylaws state, without emotion and without escalating the situation. Don't infantilize the teenage boys, but hold them accountable in the way it was initially spelled out.

 

Barb

[unsinkable]

Let me start by saying I hate co-op drama. The co-op has a policy that states students are not to be outside unless supervised by an adult. We have repeatedly reminded people/students but to be honest everyone has been lax about it. It has gotten out of hand. So as the Director I came up with the following solution.

1st time verbal warning and sent back inside to find an adult.

2nd warning written notice

3rd time and each family that is outside will be fined 25 dollars. You will not be allowed to return to co-op (our co-op is weekly) until the fine is paid.

 

The board was in agreement and we made the announcement. There was a lot of grumbling by the students (mostly the teenage boys). We then heard the boys planned to have a walk out. There logic is that we can't really do anything because our co-op only has two more weeks. I chalked it up to talking smack in a group until I found out some of the parents are supporting it.

 

To me this is open defiance. It should not be tolerated and needs to be dealt with harshly.

 

Here is my proposal. To send out an email to all of the parents notifying them of the situation (without naming names) and state that if this happens said students will be asked to leave the property and will not be allowed to finish out the next few weeks or attend in the fall.

 

Am I overreacting? I don't like my authority challenged.:001_smile: I would like to resolve this issue peacefully and with everyone on the same page.

 

What the heck?! Why would they support it? I am sure they knew of the supervision rule when they signed up.

 

They sound like pot-stirrers who are raising pot-stirrers.

[Margo out of lurking]

I do not think you are overreacting. I do not think you are being harsh. I find the parental support disturbing. No one is forcing these families to be here. If they don't like the rules, they should leave. Period.

(Am I correct to assume this is not a Christian co-op, in which case the students and parents are not submitting to authority?)

[myfunnybunch]

How big is your co-op? Do you know most of the families involved?

 

It sounds like the kids are willing to band together to protest something with which they disagree, though I'm not sure a walk-out is the best way to do that. Would one of the parents of these kids be willing to facilitate this as a learning experience?: What do we do as a group when we disagree with the rules? Having the kids approach the board and listen to the reasons for the rules and voice their opinions could be a great learning experience. Lemons out of lemonade, and all that.

 

If the kids are involved in solving the problem, it might be easier to get one or more of the families to step up and provide supervision.

 

Cat

[ciyates]

I think one of the underlining issues maybe that this is the church home of some of the students and they feel they have the free reign of the building. We have stated many, many times (at our weekly announcements) the rules and the reason behind it. One family in particular has an ax to grind with me so that is why I am trying ohhh so hard to be merciful, however it is in my opinion that if you don't want to be there go some where else. We just put this policy in place this week. I feel open defiance needs to be handled swiftly and harshly, however I really don't want to destroy the co-op in the process.

 

We are a small co-op (only about 100 kids) and they are many larger co-ops in our area. The co-op board is split some say this is long over due and others saying let it play out.

[Barb_]

I feel open defiance needs to be handled swiftly and harshly, however I really don't want to destroy the co-op in the process.

 

 

You've said harshly twice. Do you maybe mean something more like "definitively"? I still say to ignore the big staged walkout and calmly say, "Boys, you know the rules...get back inside (1st offense). If they give you lip, you pull out the written notice you've prepared ahead of time, hand it to them and say, "Look, I know you think I'm messing around but this is serious and this is the final time I'm going to mention it. You will not be allowed back until you submit to this rule. (second warning)" Now you're good until the end of the year. Whoever walks out between now and two weeks from now no longer wishes to be part of the co-op.

 

Barb

[Halcyon]

I think it sounds like you need some teenagers on your board.

[JFSinIL]

I would have a sit down talk with everyone and go over the INSURANCE aspect - note that everything would come to a screeching halt if INSURANCE rules not followed. That is just the way it is. No insurance - no co'op.

 

The kids might feel it is all arbitrary - let them in on the insurance issues.

[Rosie_0801]

Is there any way for those kids to be signed out, so you are not legally responsible for them, during their spares?

 

Rosie

[Rosie_0801]

Is there any way for those kids to be signed out, so you are not legally responsible for them, during their spares? Or a room inside set aside for them?

 

Rosie

[Murphy101]

Well honestly I see both sides.

 

On the one hand, it isn't a playground. The purpose is coop and anyone not participating in coop should not be there just goofing off on church property.

 

On the other hand, I think it is patently ridiculous that TEENS have to have adult supervision for what? An hour between classes? That's nuts. And any insurance policy dictating it is nuts.

 

Is it the church insurance policy or the coop's? If it is the coop's, then I'm not sure how a kid not in coop (out of class) pertains?

 

I don't think you are being harsh. If they don't want to follow the rules, then they can find another coop.

[Joanne]

Well honestly I see both sides.

 

On the one hand, it isn't a playground. The purpose is coop and anyone not participating in coop should not be there just goofing off on church property.

 

On the other hand, I think it is patently ridiculous that TEENS have to have adult supervision for what? An hour between classes? That's nuts. And any insurance policy dictating it is nuts.

 

Is it the church insurance policy or the coop's? If it is the coop's, then I'm not sure how a kid not in coop (out of class) pertains?

 

I don't think you are being harsh. If they don't want to follow the rules, then they can find another coop.

 

:iagree: This.

 

I think that the word "supervised" is fairly vague, especially when it comes to teens. I'd personally find the rule to be age and developmentally restrictive for teens.

 

I'm kind of :confused: at your reaction and perception of "open defience" and "authority challenged."

 

I think a walk out is a civil exercise of protest.

[Murphy101]

:iagree: This.

 

I think that the word "supervised" is fairly vague, especially when it comes to teens. I'd personally find the rule to be age and developmentally restrictive for teens.

 

I'm kind of :confused: at your reaction and perception of "open defience" and "authority challenged."

 

I think a walk out is a civil exercise of protest.

 

 

Woot! We agree and the world is still spinning!;):D

 

I think they are being defiant and challenging the authority of those running the coop. Which is just fine. If they want to walk out, that is their choice. And the reasonable consequence of leaving coop is they have voluntarily opted out. No refunds, further classes, whatever will be offered to those who demonstrate no desire to be there. This isn't public school. No one is forcing them to be there. They PAID and signed up for it fully understanding that roaming outside of class unattended is against the rules for liability reasons and now decide they don't want to follow the rules? Fine. Go home. Stay there. I'm not all that sympathic unless they didn't understand the rules when they signed up.

 

Personally, if it were MY teens, I would tell them to stop whining for the last 2 weeks bc I didn't pay for this coop so they can goof off. Then I would decide next year whether coop was worth it or not before signing up again. Personally, my teens don't have much time to waste during school hours. I'd likely not sign up unless classes were back to back, simply to avoid wasted time.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think they are being defiant and challenging the authority of those running the coop. Which is just fine. If they want to walk out, that is their choice. And the reasonable consequence of leaving coop is they have voluntarily opted out. No refunds, further classes, whatever will be offered to those who demonstrate no desire to be there. This isn't public school. No one is forcing them to be there. They PAID and signed up for it fully understanding that roaming outside of class unattended is against the rules for liability reasons and now decide they don't want to follow the rules? Fine. Go home. Stay there. I'm not all that sympathic unless they didn't understand the rules when they signed up.

 

 

 

:iagree:

[kalanamak]

I think it sounds like you need some teenagers on your board.

 

Good idea.

[Lady Florida.]

Is there someone in authority at the church you can talk to? It is their facility you are using. Maybe this person would be willing to talk to those parents, or send a letter if getting everyone together for a meeting is an issue.

 

ETA: I agree that it's a silly rule for teens, but for now it's the rule. Until it is changed (if it can be changed), they agreed to follow it when they signed up for the co-op.

[Gooblink]

First, I love the idea of teenager representatives on the board.

 

Now that the edict has been issued, you have to follow through. You might call a parent/board meeting and air out differences - calmly. There seems an awful lot of behind the scenes strife for parents to support this kind of behavior. It surprises me that, if they know the reasons why the policy is necessary, they wouldn't cooperate. Something sounds a little off to me.

[BigMamaBird]

I'll be the first to admit that I have a rebellious spirit. But if you sign something stating that you'll abide by specific rules, you really need to abide by them. It's not like you're micromanaging, super controlling here. Being outside a building, unsupervised has the potential to be dangerous depending on the area.

 

I'd state that if people willfully disregard these rules, they will not be welcome at the next semester.

[SproutMamaK]

It sounds like the teens feel as if they're being treated like babies, and are grasping at anything they can find to gain some power and control.

 

I say give it to them. Give them some power and control and let them learn. Explain to them one last time why the rules are the way they - that insurance dictates that anyone under xx age be supervised, and that while you understand that they don't like it, your hands are tied.

 

Then tell them that the board has found the best insurance they can, but are certainly open to suggestions. Point out to them that walking out solves nothing - it doesn't change the insurance rules. But give them the opportunity to do some leg work and find out for themselves. Tell them that the board would love to lift these restrictions on them, but have been unable to find an insurance provider that will allow them to do so. They, however, are more than welcome to try to productively work WITH the board to find a solution. They can search out insurance companies that will allow them to get what they want, find out rates should they find a policy they like, etc, and let the board know when they've found something they think if more to their liking.

 

And perhaps when they've discovered they can't do any better, and when their parents have had to get involved in making those phone calls, etc, they'll simmer down a little. They might even have some respect. Might. But they want the authority to change something here, so let them try.

[In2why]

Let me start by saying I hate co-op drama. The co-op has a policy that states students are not to be outside unless supervised by an adult. We have repeatedly reminded people/students but to be honest everyone has been lax about it. It has gotten out of hand. So as the Director I came up with the following solution.

1st time verbal warning and sent back inside to find an adult.

2nd warning written notice

3rd time and each family that is outside will be fined 25 dollars. You will not be allowed to return to co-op (our co-op is weekly) until the fine is paid.

 

The board was in agreement and we made the announcement. There was a lot of grumbling by the students (mostly the teenage boys). We then heard the boys planned to have a walk out. There logic is that we can't really do anything because our co-op only has two more weeks. I chalked it up to talking smack in a group until I found out some of the parents are supporting it.

 

To me this is open defiance. It should not be tolerated and needs to be dealt with harshly.

 

Here is my proposal. To send out an email to all of the parents notifying them of the situation (without naming names) and state that if this happens said students will be asked to leave the property and will not be allowed to finish out the next few weeks or attend in the fall.

 

Am I overreacting? I don't like my authority challenged.:001_smile: I would like to resolve this issue peacefully and with everyone on the same page.

 

 

I don't know that you are overreacting, but they have totally pushed your buttons and have you upset.

 

What is your role in the co-op? I am wondering why the Director and Board aren't handling the issue if it is important to the co-op. It is possible that it is only important to you, and they are humoring you which isn't helpful at all.

 

I also question whether you can get everyone happily on the same page. I am not even sure that should be the goal. If the rule is important, it has to be followed and the heck with being happy about it. Sometimes that means being the bad guy, if you truly have the authority to do so. If so then you follow through with what you said and don't worry about the rest of it. It doesn't sound like you can realistically have both. They can either follow the rule or they can be happy, but not both. Welcome to real life teens. :D

 

My other suggestion would be that if the teens do not think the rule is fair that their parents encourage them to go before the board and find another solution, not just defy the rules, but work within them to have them changed. That is how I would support my teen, not by encouraging a walk out. Hand them a copy of the board by-laws and tell them when the next meeting takes place.

[Lady Florida.]

I think getting the teens involved is a great idea. If they want to be treated like the young adults they believe themselves to be, then they need to act more adult-like. If they act like petulant teenagers, they can't expect to be taken seriously.

 

While I do agree that civil disobedience (though that term is usually reserved for action against the government) is a valid method of change, I also think one should try other methods before resorting to something like a walk-out.

[NorthwestMom]

We attend a co-op with similar rules and it just drives me crazy. I do understand the insurance aspect, however, it makes no sense to me that kids who are old enough to babysit for us and work at paid jobs need their moms to watch over them while they behave perfectly well. That would simply be an aggravation but my tension is running pretty high on this topic because the rules are unevenly enforced and SOME teens are allowed to roam while others (like mine, who has never had any behavior problems EVER) are chastised for trying to walk out to our car to get supplies without me accompanying him (in the rain with my two younger kids). If we had a general volunteer supervising the outdoors it would be so much better, but alas, we do not.

 

It would be very helpful if there was either A) wiggle room in the insurance for Teen Privilege or B) Consistent enforcement of this rule for everybody.

 

I also think SproutMamaK has an excellent solution that brings the teens into the process of running the co-op.

 

Good luck. No one like sot be the bad guy.

[Murphy101]

I disagree with having the teens involved on the board.

 

Simply bc it just isn't up to them and it is unlikely there is a dang thing they can do about it.

 

I think giving them a prop position or the allure of having a say is just a waste of time and can create further disgruntlement.

 

Bottom line is if this is church or coop policy for insurance reasons, their opinion on it just does not matter and has no effect on it.

 

If it is a case of parents making the rules, then the parents need to step up and either adjust the rules or accept that this group is not for them instead of pawning obtaining resolution onto the students.

 

To me this is no different than high school student body elections for kids who do nothing but plan school approved parties. Or those employee surveys where employers claim they want employee input but nothing ever comes of it other than employees now know the employer knows what they want/need and doesn't give a flip and business goes on same as always.

 

Yeah it sounds all nice and empowering and so forth.

 

But really it's just an annoying waste of time in an effort to appear to conciliatory and pacify.

[Danestress]

would be to not have free periods.

 

Maybe you should have a supervised study hall that parents pay a minimal fee for. Use the fee to pay a supervisor if you pay parents. If the teachers are volunteers, have study hall be a volunteer slot.

[Murphy101]

would be to not have free periods.

 

Maybe you should have a supervised study hall that parents pay a minimal fee for. Use the fee to pay a supervisor if you pay parents. If the teachers are volunteers, have study hall be a volunteer slot.

 

I think that is an excellent suggestion! I can't imagine wasting an hour or more between classes. If they weren't back to back, I wouldn't sign up or I'd have to send them with their school work or something, kwim? My teens just don't seem to have several hours during the school day to goof off.:001_huh:

 

Honestly, this makes me think the coop is less academic and more social outlet? If it is predominately viewed as a social outlet, it stand to reason the teens and their parents are going to be annoyed at the no teens socializing without supervision aspect.

 

Otherwise, I would expect more of a general go to class and do home attitude.

[In2why]

I disagree with having the teens involved on the board.

 

Simply bc it just isn't up to them and it is unlikely there is a dang thing they can do about it.

 

I think giving them a prop position or the allure of having a say is just a waste of time and can create further disgruntlement.

 

Bottom line is if this is church or coop policy for insurance reasons, their opinion on it just does not matter and has no effect on it.

 

If it is a case of parents making the rules, then the parents need to step up and either adjust the rules or accept that this group is not for them instead of pawning obtaining resolution onto the students.

 

To me this is no different than high school student body elections for kids who do nothing but plan school approved parties. Or those employee surveys where employers claim they want employee input but nothing ever comes of it other than employees now know the employer knows what they want/need and doesn't give a flip and business goes on same as always.

 

Yeah it sounds all nice and empowering and so forth.

 

But really it's just an annoying waste of time in an effort to appear to conciliatory and pacify.

 

It depends on the role of the teens. If they have an elected representative he/she would have one vote like everyone else on the board, no more powerful, or less powerful than anyone else on the board.

 

I also believe that anyone should have the right to address the board with any issue, no matter their age, as long as they are respectful and follow the meetings rules. If they don't believe the rule is just, then they could read the bylaws, find the section pertaining to teens being outside and then try to find a solution that fits everyone, which I would hope means that they become responsible for finding adult volunteers to supervise.

[Ellie]

Sounds good to me.

 

Furthermore, I wouldn't allow the kids who walked out to come back next year.

[Ellie]

I disagree with having the teens involved on the board.

 

Simply bc it just isn't up to them and it is unlikely there is a dang thing they can do about it.

 

I think giving them a prop position or the allure of having a say is just a waste of time and can create further disgruntlement.

 

Bottom line is if this is church or coop policy for insurance reasons, their opinion on it just does not matter and has no effect on it.

 

If it is a case of parents making the rules, then the parents need to step up and either adjust the rules or accept that this group is not for them instead of pawning obtaining resolution onto the students.

 

To me this is no different than high school student body elections for kids who do nothing but plan school approved parties. Or those employee surveys where employers claim they want employee input but nothing ever comes of it other than employees now know the employer knows what they want/need and doesn't give a flip and business goes on same as always.

 

Yeah it sounds all nice and empowering and so forth.

 

But really it's just an annoying waste of time in an effort to appear to conciliatory and pacify.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[rootsnwings]

Let the kids walk out. Learning experience. When their parents find out their child walked out they will either support the child and not come back, or not support the child and come back to you with the child, with an apology. Then you'll have the full support of the teens and parents. I think you'll have more humble teens as well. :)

[Tap]

I have worked in a home school program, and was also a parent there. We were part of a larger building.

 

A few thoughts in no particular order:

 

Some home schooled kids really don't get much time to just 'hang' with friends. There were families in our program, there simply for their teen to have some time with other teens. They didn't want the kids going off to college without a chance to hone some socialization skills and learn some basic boy/girl conversation skills. I knew about these families, as a parent, not as an administrator (parents didn't want to say they couldn't care less about the academics...just the socialization LOL).

 

One problem we ran into when we allowed teens a 'hangout' space (for quiet talking) was that younger kids were overhearing conversations, that while they were appropriate for the teenagers...weren't appropriate for 3rd graders. There was inappropriate 'closeness' between students. There were fights. There was rowdiness. It required as much babysitting as the toddler room.

 

We finally had to make a blanket rule that no child was allowed more than 1 hour of down time on site, and that had to be spent in a quiet study period. Downtime between classes was only allowed if preapproved, and was a privilege not a right. This was set up in the main lobby with the office assistant overseeing. It was strictly enforced. The consequence, to not following the rules, was having your schedule modified so that you had NO down periods. The school reserved the right to change a students schedule based on behavior related issues.

 

We did have some 'high school' kids (no one under 9th grade) who were allowed to 'check themselves out' of the school and leave school grounds. There was a note in their file, signed by the parents and child. It was an official letter approved by the school board (written by a lawyer I think) and legally released the school from liability. There was also a reminder that this was a public building and was open to everyone in the general public, not just our group, and the personal safety of each child could not be ensured. Each day there was a time that the child was officially not a student in our program, and they were expected to leave the 'school'. This wasn't handled in a harsh way, just "Hey Jessica, it is 2pm, you need to go downstairs now, see ya tomorrow". By having the written note, as long as the child left the school area, we were released from liability and the parents were aware that the teen was unsupervised. The teen was ONLY allowed on campus during approved times or when their parent was accompanying them. This allowed the few teens who were allowed to mingle, time to do so but also removed the liability from the school. We had a door way at each entrance and for us that was the specific barrier we had documented. They could be in the hall outside, or off school grounds, we didn't care as long as they had their release.

 

If you did something similar: In your circumstance, the church may have preferences, but it would up to your group to ask the church how they would want the next step handled. Can released teens be on church grounds or not? If they are church members 'yes' but 'no' if they are not? Do they want you to word you release as 'you have to be off church property by 2pm'? Are there age restrictions for this?

 

One other thought for you, would be to have some space between the 'school' hallway/entrance and the public area of the church. That way if the teens are being a bit loud, they are not being distracting to the students in the 'school'. A buffer zone would be very advantageous for the out of site-out of mind issues too. This too, would help the parents signing the waver, to understand that there is REALLY NO SUPERVISION. They aren't just outside the door.

[kalanamak]

I disagree with having the teens involved on the board.

 

 

So they can be in on the logic of it all, and put some thought into "representation" and how big people sit in a group and cope. Rather than being the passive recipient of "the rules".

 

There is a Lem novel called The Invincible, and the 3rd in command of constantly questions the captain's orders. After a bit, the captain pulls him aside and tells him he agrees, that he is going about this tricky mission wrong, and he'd like the 3rd in command to make the major plans, and he'll just be the mouthpiece, so that the crew won't be flapped by a change of command. Once "in power", the 3rd mate discovers he is doing exactly what the captain planned, that with the actual responsibility over the mission and the crew's safety, he joined the beaten path. It was a sub-plot, but a very telling one.

[arghmatey]

Three times is a lot of chances.

 

I'd propose the fine for the first offense, especially since they are intentionally breaking the rules.

 

Bizarre.

[Murphy101]

So they can be in on the logic of it all, and put some thought into "representation" and how big people sit in a group and cope. Rather than being the passive recipient of "the rules".

 

There is a Lem novel called The Invincible, and the 3rd in command of constantly questions the captain's orders. After a bit, the captain pulls him aside and tells him he agrees, that he is going about this tricky mission wrong, and he'd like the 3rd in command to make the major plans, and he'll just be the mouthpiece, so that the crew won't be flapped by a change of command. Once "in power", the 3rd mate discovers he is doing exactly what the captain planned, that with the actual responsibility over the mission and the crew's safety, he joined the beaten path. It was a sub-plot, but a very telling one.

 

Yeah well life is not an after school special.

 

Bottom line is the kids aren't paying for the classes, hiring teachers, getting griped at by other parents or church staff, and they don't get sued - which is the point of insurance. Those who actually run the coop get the vote.

 

There is nothing for the teens to vote on anyways in this issue.

 

Whether the coop has insurance or not is likely not up for vote. It is a requirement of the organization.

 

What church policy is that the coop has to follow if they want to use those facilities is not up for vote either.

 

Pretending to give them a say when they don't have one is a waste of time and more than likely just going to annoy them once they realize it is just a prop position.

 

Again, I think the parents need to step up and teach these lessons to their teens bc it is not the job of the board to do so.

 

Sometimes we don't get a say. It's part of life. If the parents don't like it, then find another coop. They knew the rules when they signed up. If the kids don't like it, that's between them and their parents to decide how to handle it. If they want to do something to get kicked out, that's their choice, but I think it a poor precedence to set for parents to support them when it is over something petty like not getting to goof off on other people's property between classes.

[Mary in VA]

would be to not have free periods.

 

Maybe you should have a supervised study hall that parents pay a minimal fee for. Use the fee to pay a supervisor if you pay parents. If the teachers are volunteers, have study hall be a volunteer slot.

 

:iagree:Our co-op has a study hall that everyone is required to be in if they are not in a class. A parent volunteer monitors it, and all parents are required to volunteer a set number of hours a year depending on how many children they have in the co-op. Study hall is free. Our co-op also doesn't allow children of any age outside without director approval due to liability issues. When the weather is nice in spring and fall the kids can eat lunch outside, but then there are adults outside.

 

Mary

[Night Elf]

Honestly, this makes me think the coop is less academic and more social outlet?

 

What if the 11:00am class is Algebra and my child is in Geometry? Not every student will be in the same subjects. And then there are the possibilities that one period will not offer any subject that is beneficial for my child's education. I'm just giving examples of how having some free periods wouldn't necessarily mean the entire co-op is a social outlet.

 

I've suggested a study hall for our homeschool resource center. I'm surprised that parents drop off young students who end up having free periods. They have no supervision and it's a burden on the director who is doing work of her own. It's assumed she's a free babysitter.

[Murphy101]

What if the 11:00am class is Algebra and my child is in Geometry? Not every student will be in the same subjects. And then there are the possibilities that one period will not offer any subject that is beneficial for my child's education. I'm just giving examples of how having some free periods wouldn't necessarily mean the entire co-op is a social outlet.

 

I've suggested a study hall for our homeschool resource center. I'm surprised that parents drop off young students who end up having free periods. They have no supervision and it's a burden on the director who is doing work of her own. It's assumed she's a free babysitter.

 

 

No, I get how why there might be gaps between classes, but if the primary purpose of the coop is academic, I would not want to waste an hour or more between classes just goofing off? I absolutely would not permit a walk out due to lack of free time to play around unsupervised if the entire reason I enrolled my teen was for academic purposes.

 

Because I completely agree with you. It is thoroughly rude to presume other people (both instructors, other parents, and church staff) are going to appreciate your child, of any age, just running about when not in class.

 

However, if it was a social outlet primarily, then I would think that accounts for why they are being so lax and getting their undies in a wad over what they see as being too uptight about the kids having a little fun.

[kalanamak]

Yeah well life is not an after school special.

 

Bottom line is the kids aren't paying for the classes, hiring teachers, getting griped at by other parents or church staff, and they don't get sued - which is the point of insurance. Those who actually run the coop get the vote.

.

 

No need to be insulting (sarcastic).

 

And no one said anything about voting. The insurance rules are the insurance rules. There is no voting about it. No reason not to let a representative teen in on how adults work things out. Wish I'd been a little less segregated from what adults did. Might have had a more confident transition from teen to adult. Heck, might have even stuck around instead of hitting the road at 16 just to get away from the morass of childhood.

[ktgrok]

Our insurance requires that students are supervised at all times. We allow families to pick and choose the classes they want so it is possible to have free periods. All the student have to do is ask someone to go outside with them while they play basketball or hang out in the gym area. We tried the volunteer sign up sheet but could not get anyone to do it. We have a problem with moms socializing instead of watching their students. We also have large families so mom maybe in the nursery with the little ones while the older ones are unsupervised.

 

I am trying to error on the side of grace. I don't want to cause a rift but they just cannot be outside unsupervised.

 

Honestly, I'd address the students in class, and send out an email ASAP, explaining this again. I'd start off the next coop saying that you have heard about the walk out and want to talk about it. That you can't have people outside because of insurance reasons, and that if you lost the insurance you couldn't have coop anymore. Ask what their solutions are, and ask them why the think a walk out is appropriate.

[Murphy101]

No need to be insulting (sarcastic).

 

And no one said anything about voting. The insurance rules are the insurance rules. There is no voting about it. No reason not to let a representative teen in on how adults work things out. Wish I'd been a little less segregated from what adults did. Might have had a more confident transition from teen to adult. Heck, might have even stuck around instead of hitting the road at 16 just to get away from the morass of childhood.

 

Actually, previous posters did mention teen voting on the board.

 

I see no purpose to having a teen representative when ANY teen can come sit in to listen to any board meeting with their parents. Seems rather purposeless to create a fake title of Representative to do something that any member of the coop can do anytime they want and who doesn't have any genuine vote in the process.

 

I'm all for teens knowing what is going on and why and how it works. I just don't think creating pseudo positions on the board is the way to do it.

[Halcyon]

Yeah well life is not an after school special.

 

Bottom line is the kids aren't paying for the classes, hiring teachers, getting griped at by other parents or church staff, and they don't get sued - which is the point of insurance. Those who actually run the coop get the vote.

 

There is nothing for the teens to vote on anyways in this issue.

 

Whether the coop has insurance or not is likely not up for vote. It is a requirement of the organization.

 

What church policy is that the coop has to follow if they want to use those facilities is not up for vote either.

 

Pretending to give them a say when they don't have one is a waste of time and more than likely just going to annoy them once they realize it is just a prop position.

 

Again, I think the parents need to step up and teach these lessons to their teens bc it is not the job of the board to do so.

 

Sometimes we don't get a say. It's part of life. If the parents don't like it, then find another coop. They knew the rules when they signed up. If the kids don't like it, that's between them and their parents to decide how to handle it. If they want to do something to get kicked out, that's their choice, but I think it a poor precedence to set for parents to support them when it is over something petty like not getting to goof off on other people's property between classes.

 

 

As homeschool parents, wouldn't we be grateful for an opportunity that allows our kids a voice, helps our children learn how boards operate, and gives them a chance to participate? I understand there are rules, but I am thinking down the line--how to prevent this from happening in the future. I appreciate that the OP has to figure out what to do NOW, but going forward, I think giving the teens a voice is a good idea.

[Halcyon]

No need to be insulting (sarcastic).

 

And no one said anything about voting. The insurance rules are the insurance rules. There is no voting about it. No reason not to let a representative teen in on how adults work things out. Wish I'd been a little less segregated from what adults did. Might have had a more confident transition from teen to adult. Heck, might have even stuck around instead of hitting the road at 16 just to get away from the morass of childhood.

 

 

:iagree:

[pfamilygal]

Our co-op requires all students to be in a class every hour. If the teens cannot choose a class they must take study hall. An adult is assigned to that class and they must sit and study, though they often chat and hang out more than study. But they are supervised.

[MamaT]

Our co-op requires all students to be in a class every hour. If the teens cannot choose a class they must take study hall. An adult is assigned to that class and they must sit and study, though they often chat and hang out more than study. But they are supervised.

 

This is how our co-op works as well. I can't imagine parents that would actually allow/encourage their teens to buck the rules. That is going to backfire on them in the future.

 

OP, I say do whatever you have to in order to enforce the rules. Maybe you would be better off without these families next fall.