On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:16:57 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:23 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:09:08 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:18 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
om...

MESQUITE, Texas -

The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have
rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust
its grooming policy.

The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in
in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a
library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary
School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November.

After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided
the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than
his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor,
who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar.

His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a
ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended.

According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of
the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the
collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract
attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the
classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states.

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year,
a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His
parents chose to home-school him.

On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because
"students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable
and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members
of the society in which we live."

Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering
taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of
Education.

"I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said.



God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas.


Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom???

Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school?

Since private (for profit) (and home) schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those "goverment-subsidized (sic)
schools" their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought,
freedom, expression, etc.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt on both sides of that argument.

"government-subsidized (sic)"? Is that you have issues with a
legitmately hyphenized word construction or that you object to the
description of schools receiving government monies as being
subsidized?

My issue was with "goverment," not the rest of your straw man. It
reminded me of nukular. Nice retype....

And your proposition that "schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those...schools...their expressed
purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression" is not
a sound proposition. (Don't worry. I won't (sic) you (even if you
left out a comma).)
http://www.wordnik.com/words/governm...dized/examples

It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because
they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some
belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is
how they define themselves.

Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative,
you have feigned erudition in clumsily applying a denotation generally
employed in the quoting of an immediate sentential error. And if that
isn't abstruse enough for you, your proposition was confined to the
explicit contention that the expressed purpose of the private school
is to *prevent* individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on. It
is a narrow-minded proposition and can be denied by those who find
other credible reasons to find legal, viable alternatives in private
education that may be as benign as wanting to insure a quality
education for a child. Your entire retort has been banal, if I may be
equally condescending.

I agree with this post...

I can predict that you will receive nothing more than a hackneyed
retort to you positive affirmation.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:18:38 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:16:57 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:23 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:09:08 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:18 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
om...

MESQUITE, Texas -

The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have
rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust
its grooming policy.

The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in
in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a
library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary
School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November.

After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided
the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than
his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor,
who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar.

His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a
ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended.

According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of
the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the
collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract
attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the
classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states.

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year,
a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His
parents chose to home-school him.

On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because
"students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable
and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members
of the society in which we live."

Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering
taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of
Education.

"I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said.



God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas.


Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom???

Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school?

Since private (for profit) (and home) schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those "goverment-subsidized (sic)
schools" their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought,
freedom, expression, etc.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt on both sides of that argument.

"government-subsidized (sic)"? Is that you have issues with a
legitmately hyphenized word construction or that you object to the
description of schools receiving government monies as being
subsidized?

My issue was with "goverment," not the rest of your straw man. It
reminded me of nukular. Nice retype....

And your proposition that "schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those...schools...their expressed
purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression" is not
a sound proposition. (Don't worry. I won't (sic) you (even if you
left out a comma).)
http://www.wordnik.com/words/governm...dized/examples

It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because
they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some
belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is
how they define themselves.

Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative,
you have feigned erudition in clumsily applying a denotation generally
employed in the quoting of an immediate sentential error. And if that
isn't abstruse enough for you, your proposition was confined to the
explicit contention that the expressed purpose of the private school
is to *prevent* individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on. It
is a narrow-minded proposition and can be denied by those who find
other credible reasons to find legal, viable alternatives in private
education that may be as benign as wanting to insure a quality
education for a child. Your entire retort has been banal, if I may be
equally condescending.

I agree with this post...

I can predict that you will receive nothing more than a hackneyed
retort to you positive affirmation.

In other words, the response is not going to be genteel...