Out-of-school discipline of their children is not just "first and mainly" the parents' responsibility. It is solely the parents' responsibility, or in extreme cases, that of civil authorities such as the police - but certainly not the schools. The only time the schools should have any authority regarding a child's behavior is when that child, in his role as a student, is misbehaving on school property or during school functions off-campus.

Should parents support their kids' schools that mete out appropriate discipline for proven wrongs committed during school activities? Of course. Should parents cry foul when their children are
unjustly punished for unproven wrongs, or when schools attempt to exert authority where by law they have none? Absolutely!

This is called resisting governmental oppression, one of those apparently outdated concepts upon which this country was founded. But beyond this issue, is another presented in this opinion piece about which I'm truly shocked: that you would support children being punished for guilt-by-association (such as simply being in the presence of alcohol) when no proof of wrongdoing on the part of those students has been presented. So a minor was pictured in the presence of alcohol; I could walk into just about any restaurant any evening, take a few pictures, and show dozens of minors in the presence of alcohol while out to dinner with their parents. Should they all be given detention? Would you sanction your child being disciplined by his school if a photograph turned up of him in the presence of a beer-drinking adult at your Independence Day picnic?

Here's a radical idea: wait until children commit wrongdoing before punishing them, and if that wrongdoing is not school-related, let parents handle their disciplinary responsibilities while the schools . . . butt out.

Muriel Hergenroeder
Newville