By | May 4th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I think it should have been considered. I have a 13yr old and 6 yr old in school and I am extremely worried. Not only about their well being but lets remember there are other family members in a household that get exposed to these increased risks of having a child attending school. What about the pregnant moms, elderly or younger siblings?? I have a 6 month old baby at home. It should be an option, after all there isnt much time left for school to finish. The loss of a few weeks of school is better than a possibly deadly flu.
I agree with the parent. I have thought about doing this myself. If something happens to one of those boys because their parents were forced to send their kids to school it will fall on the school & as a parent I would sue the heck out of them. How dare someone make me send my children to school when their is an illness than can cause death floating around? Apparently the all mighty dollar is more important than a child’s well being.
As a teacher, I would have to agree with the judge. When students are not in school, they are not receiving the full education. Any decision that is made in a court sets a precedent. If the judge went with the parents, schools would be empty during flu season each year. That being said, it is utterly ridiculous that this even had to go to the court system. Why couldn’t the parents have simply been cautious instead of proclaiming that their children would be absent for the rest of the school year?
Mail (will not be published) (required)